Home - List All Discussions

Anyone else here pro-life and against the death penalty?

by: ProudDadX2

I'm not Catholic, although I know there's a big Catholic faction that believes this way.
I became pro-life at the age of 26 and anti-death penalty at the age of 32. Has anyone else come to this point in their lives, wrestled with it at all, etc., or am I just kind of a rare bird?

reply from: 4given

I have never been for the death penalty. My guess is that the only opinion of true value would have to be the surviving members of any family that had their loved one violently murdered. Although personally opposed (due to those that may lose their life unjustly), I have to say that to any man or women that abducts, rapes, tortures and murders another person- especially a child- death by lethal injection is merciful compared to the lifetime of suffering they inflicted on the innocent- nevermind their victim.

reply from: TraderTif

I'm, in general, against the death penalty. I could possibly see using it if there is no other way to keep society safe, but I think most countries could manage to keep dangerous criminals away from society, when the risk is that high.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

I believe the death penalty should only be used in cases where there is incontrovertible DNA evidence for heinous, premeditated murders.

reply from: BossMomma

I'm pro-life and pro-death penalty, an innocent unborn child is a far cry from a serial killer.

reply from: CharlesD

I support the death penalty in extreme cases. If someone rapes and kills a child, serial killers, that sort of thing. There's no point in spending taxpayer dollars to put them up in the gray bar hotel. If you mess with a kid like that, you have forfeited your right to breathe in my book. Abortion takes an innocent life, so I don't think it's inconsistent.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That's where I stand on it too. Some people have forefitted their right to life by denying life to others.

reply from: xnavy

i am also not catholic but i don't believe in abortion or the death penalty, because there is the chance we could accidentally kill an
innocent person , who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

reply from: scopia19822

I am against the death penalty. I believe the only one who can decide who lives and who dies is God. Abortion and the death penalty are state sanctioned murder.

reply from: yoda

In some cases, people make that decision for you. Say a gunman walks into a school yard and starts shooting kids, and you are only in a position to stop him with your own gun, hasn't that gunman made the decision already?

reply from: scopia19822

"In some cases, people make that decision for you. Say a gunman walks into a school yard and starts shooting kids, and you are only in a position to stop him with your own gun, hasn't that gunman made the decision already?"
Yes he has and in that situation you have an obligation to stop him in the progress of a crime, even if it means lethal force. But that isnt a premeditated murder, where you plan for days, weeks, monthes etc to kill a person like in the cases of abortion or the death penalty.

reply from: lycan

I'm as a rule not for the death penalty, though I had to testify in a capital case about a year ago. One reservation I've had about it is what it would do to the person who actually does the executing, a parallel to the guilt many women feel after an abortion. While I haven't read anything about that per se, I have read that jurors who vote in death penalty cases often have nightmares relating to the case.

reply from: AshMarie88

I agree with both RiverMoonLady and BossMama.

reply from: carolemarie

I am not for killing anyone. I am prolife and anti-death penalty.

reply from: ProInformed

I've met many pro-lifers who are opposed to the death penalty.
I'm pretty sure the group Feminists For Life is anti-death penalty and is part of the 'seamless life' network of groups that are pro-life, anti-death penalty.
I have a similar question:
How many pro-choicers and pro-aborts are anti-death penalty UNLESS the person being put to death is anti-abortion?
July 29, 1994:
Paul J. Hill kills abortionist John Bayard Britton and his armed "escort," James H. Barrett. Hill is convicted of murder and sentenced to death. He is later executed. Many pro-abortionists who vocally oppose the death penalty tie themselves in logical knots trying to justify it for Hill.

reply from: ProInformed

Serial child sexual predator Ian Huntley was an English pro-abortionist with a taste for very young girls - and violence.
During a December 2003 trial for rape, his sordid and predatory past emerged. Over a period stretching back to 1995, he had raped and sexually assaulted at least six girls aged 12 to 18. But repeated blunders by police and social workers meant that he was never convicted.
One of his victims, Janine Oliver, described him as a "sick, twisted and demented" person who "definitely had a thing about school uniforms."
Claire Evans had been married to Huntley, and he had demanded that she have an abortion. When she refused, he shoved her down a flight of stairs, then beat her until she miscarried.
Huntley also beat up several other women he had lived with from time to time.
Huntley's career of terror was finally ended when he raped and murdered a schoolgirl named Jodi Jones. Two little ten-year-old girls, Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, witnessed the assault. So, in order to get rid of any evidence, he abducted both girls and murdered them as well. Then he cut off all of their clothes, dumped them in a ditch, and doused their bodies with gasoline and tried to burn them.
Finally, Huntley was jailed for life. Judge Alan Moses told him: "You showed no mercy and you show no regret. There are few worse crimes than your murder of those two young girls." Huntley will spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement, to prevent other convicts from trying to kill him.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

PI - If you are going to post OTHER PEOPLE'S WRITINGS, you should name the source. Otherwise it is calle "plagiarism" - the theft of the written work of others.
We all know you didn't write many of your posts.

reply from: cracrat

I presume you offer this as an example of a criminal who deserves to die even whilst you can't know what it was like in this country during the whole Soham murders affair, though I have no doubt people in America have committed similarly appalling crimes. The papers were full of new sordid and sallacious details everyday (things like this tend to bring out the worst in tabloid editors IMO), people actually protested/stood vigil outside the courtroom, conversations in the pub/club/wherever were about little else, but I maintain he does not deserve to die. Everyone deserves an opportunity to make amends for their transgretions, to develop remorse for their crimes and not be a victim of revenge, which I can't help feeling is what the death penalty is mostly about.

reply from: ProInformed

In December 1973, Stano picked up 17-year-old hitchhiker Cathy Lee Scharf of Port Orange, Florida. He stabbed her to death and dumped her body in a remote area of Broward County. In July 1975, he murdered 16-year-old Linda Hamilton, and in January 1976, he killed 24-year-old Nancy Heard. Later in 1976, he murdered Ramona Ecker and Ramona Neal.
In February 1980, Stano stabbed 20-year-old Mary Carol Maher to death and dumped her body in an abandoned area near the Daytona Beach Airport. On February 25, he hired a prostitute, Toni Van Haddocks, and murdered her by stabbing her repeatedly in the head.
On March 25, 1980, he hired another prostitute and slashed her thigh with a knife during an argument. This woman was the person who was responsible for his identification and arrest.
On April 1, 1980, Stano was brought in for questioning and confessed to the slashing of the prostitute. He also confessed to the killing of Mary Carol Maher, saying "Well, I carry this knife under the seat. So I pulled it out and I just hit her as hard as I could. I stabbed her several times in the chest. She opened the door and tried to get out, but I cut her on the leg and pulled her back in. I shut the door, she fell forward and hit her head against the dashboard and started gurgling. I stabbed her a couple more times in the back, because she was messing up my car. She just went limp. So I took her."
This same day, Stano confessed to the murder of Toni Van Haddocks.
Finally, Stano pled guilty to the murders of Mary Carol Maher, Toni Van Haddocks and Nancy Heard, and his confessions in many other murder cases would be entered into the court record. On September 2, 1981, Judge S. James Foxman sentenced him to three consecutive life sentences. Judge Foxman said "Mr. Stano, the information before me, these three cases, lead me to believe that the death sentence may very well have been appropriate in any of those three cases. Perhaps all of them. I reluctantly agreed not to sentence you to death, to eliminate the possibility of the death penalty."
Stano looked forward to being a kind of celebrity in prison, but the other inmates pretty much ignored him, and this enraged him. So, in order to get more fame among the other prisoners, he contacted detectives in order to give them more details on his other murders. During the subsequent interviews, he confessed to the murders of Cathy Lee Scharf, 24-year-old Susan Bickrest, 23-year-old Mary Muldoon, 19-year-old Janine Ligotino, 17-year-old Ann Arceneaux, 17-year-old Barbara Ann Baur, 34-year-old Bonnie Hughes, 18-year-old Diana Valleck, 21-year-old Emily Branch, 17-year-old Christina Goodson, 23-year-old Phoebe Winston, 18-year-old Joan Foster, 12-year-old Susan Basile, 35-year-old Sandra DuBose, 17-year-old Dorothy Williams, and an unidentified woman whose body was found in Altamonte Springs, Florida in 1974. Stano knew many details of each of these murders which confirmed him as the killer in each case. Eventually, Stano confessed to the murders of 41 women in all, but eighteen were definitely attributed to him.
On June 8, 1983, Stano pled guilty to the murders of Susan Bickrest and Mary Muldoon, and Judge Foxman sentenced him to death. In September 1983, a jury convicted Stano of Cathy Lee Scharf's murder and recommended the death penalty. The trial court found four aggravating factors: (1) prior conviction of a violent felony; (2) the murder was committed during a kidnapping; (3) the murder was heinous, atrocious, or cruel; and (4) the murder was cold, calculated, and premeditated. The trial court also sentenced Stano to death, and two years later his conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal.
Gerald Eugene Stano's execution date was pushed back several times, but, on the morning of March 23, 1998, he ate his last meal - a Delmonico steak with bacon bits, baked potato with sour cream, French bread with butter, and a tossed salad topped with blue cheese dressing. Dessert was a half-gallon of mint chocolate chip ice cream. He washed all of this down with two liters of Dr. Pepper.
Then he was executed in the electric chair at Florida State Prison, witnessed by many relatives of the women he had murdered.

reply from: yoda

True.
I remember a case a few years back in Kansas, where this teen age boy stabbed a five year old girl in the head with a pair of scissors and killed her. He later confessed to the crime, explaining that he thought they would go easier on him if he confessed before they found out that he had done it. He said he had no particular reason for killing her, he just wanted to see what would happen. Had I been on that jury, I think I would've voted for the death penalty, which is what he got.

reply from: cracrat

True.
I remember a case a few years back in Kansas, where this teen age boy stabbed a five year old girl in the head with a pair of scissors and killed her. He later confessed to the crime, explaining that he thought they would go easier on him if he confessed before they found out that he had done it. He said he had no particular reason for killing her, he just wanted to see what would happen. Had I been on that jury, I think I would've voted for the death penalty, which is what he got.
That's an atrocious crime, but a more atrocious punishment. What does it say about society when we would rather extract our pound of flesh than help a clearly disturbed young man learn the difference between right and wrong? You rail against abortion yet condone this other bloodletting? You're a strange man Mr Vater, very strange.

reply from: myasmommy713

http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/

reply from: myasmommy713

I totally agree with you !!!

reply from: scopia19822

"True.
I remember a case a few years back in Kansas, where this teen age boy stabbed a five year old girl in the head with a pair of scissors and killed her. He later confessed to the crime, explaining that he thought they would go easier on him if he confessed before they found out that he had done it. He said he had no particular reason for killing her, he just wanted to see what would happen. Had I been on that jury, I think I would've voted for the death penalty, which is what he got"
I am sorry Yoda, but I cannot look at myself in the mirror and call myself prolife if I support the right to life for one group and say that another has the right to be legally killed. Plus my religion teaches that both abortion and capital punishment are wrong.

reply from: Hosea

I tend to hold the Catholic position. I am pro-life and against the death penalty except when society cannot protect itself from these criminals. That said, I do not equate a mass murderer with an innocent unborn child

reply from: MC3

For several reasons, I am an outspoken opponent of the death penalty.
Its proponents always argue that, because of the safeguards and lengthy appeals process in our system, the possibility of executing an innocent person is almost non-existent. I am not at all convinced of that but let's assume for a moment that it's true.
When you bring up the fact - and it is a fact - that it costs more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for the rest of their life, the inevitable response is that this enormous expense is because of the unnecessarily long appeals process. The implication of that statement being that the lengthy appeals process should be eliminated.
So the question is: Do we make capital punishment economically practical by eliminating the only aspect of it that, to some, makes it justifiable from a moral perspective? After all, we apparently can't have it both ways. Either we make it cheap and accept the occasional execution of an innocent person, or we eliminate that possibility by making it unjustifiably expensive.
I fully understand why proponents of the death penalty defend it by re-telling the horror of particularly gruesome crimes. And I want to make it clear that, I think, the animals who commit these sort of things are fully deserving of execution. But my problem is with those who would do the executing. I have worked in the American judicial system for years and can say, without flinching, that it is teaming with corruption and inefficiency from the top to the bottom. I know it sounds cynical, but my experience has been that an American courtroom is nothing more than a place where 12 people who were not smart enough to come up with a way to get out of jury duty decide which side hired the best lawyer. In addition, the whole process is controlled by a judge who is often under the influence of some political agenda or personal ambition.
To suggest that we would allow such a system to put people to death is frightening. Furthermore, as a conservative, my view is that we should cede to the government as little power as possible. And while it's entirely appropriate to say that the government has a duty to protect human life, it is something else altogether to give it the power to take life. Remember, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And there is no greater example of "absolute power" than the power to legally take human life.
In the final analysis, I see both abortion and capital punishment as the natural outgrowths of this insane belief that we can solve any problem by simply killing enough of the right people. Having said that, however, I will also say that it is preposterous to suggest that those who support capital punishment are disqualified from legitimately claiming to be pro-life. There is no inconsistency in contending that convicted murderers should be executed but innocent babies should not be.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I am a proponent of the death penalty, and I would be willing to be wrongfully persecuted and sent to death in order to protect our system of justice. Call me lawful-good or a goody-two-shoes, but that's how I feel.

reply from: scopia19822

Personaly Liberal that is one of the most twisted things I have heard in my entire 26 years on this planet. So what is your take on those who have been sentenced to death and later turned out that they were innocent because DNA cleared them? Worse the ones that were executed and later cleared? As long as it is all in the name of"justice" I guess that makes it ok. What of the wasted years of the one that was cleared and released, you cant give those back to those people. What of the grief of the familes of the ones who relatives were wrongfully executed? Many states have put a moratorium on the death penalty for reasons like this. It cost more to exceute a prisoner than to keep them imprisoned for life.The death penalty is state sanctioned murder, pure and simple. The executioner and those who participate in executions are just as bad as the abortionist and their staff. One innocent person executed or wrongfully sentenced to death is reason enough to be against it and see it abolished.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

For the very, very few people who have died unjustly, I can only say that I am glad our science has improved so that this doesn't happen as often.
Where are your stats that show it costs the US government more to execute than to keep them alive?
If someone raped my theoretical daughter, tore her body up, and ate the pieces, I would kill him myself if I got ahold of him.

reply from: scopia19822

"For the very, very few people who have died unjustly, I can only say that I am glad our science has improved so that this doesn't happen as often.
"
Isnt one INNOCENT person executed enough? And its ok to happen in the future as long as it doesnt happen "as often". The death penalty is irreversable when it is implemented and lets face it the justice system in the nation if pretty messed up.It has happened to a "few " too many and not all death row inmates had DNA available at thier trials and others do not have access to it now because they cannot afford it. At least if we imprison them for life and it turns out they were innocent we can release them, cant do anything after they are dead.
"Where are your stats that show it costs the US government more to execute than to keep them alive?"
The death penalty is handled by the states, the Feds rarely execute.
http://www.fnsa.org/v1n1/dieter1.html

"If someone raped my theoretical daughter, tore her body up, and ate the pieces, I would kill him myself if I got ahold of him."[
As the mother of a "murdered " child which would have been the case if I was 7 months instead of 5 monthes I would have asked the DA not to seek the death penalty against my ex and the abortionist. I would get more pleasure knowing that in prison they were Bubba's ***** ....

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Everyone is different, and I personally want to see convicted mass murderers and other severe ingrates killed. I actually think in some cases they should be killed the way they killed, like that mother who sent her two children into the lake inside her car. She should have been drowned to death.

reply from: lukesmom

Nor can I.
Nor I.

reply from: lukesmom

Then you would be no better than they are; just another killer.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You can feel that way, but I feel that if you murder other humans in cold blood, you have forefitted your right to life.

reply from: JRH

Then you would be a murderer who should get sentenced to death. When people cede their authority to the government in the social contract they agree to follow the laws and government and fulfill their obligations.

reply from: scopia19822

"You can feel that way, but I feel that if you murder other humans in cold blood, you have forefitted your right to life."
Did God die and appoint you to act in his stead?

reply from: scopia19822

"Everyone is different, and I personally want to see convicted mass murderers and other severe ingrates killed. I actually think in some cases they should be killed the way they killed, like that mother who sent her two children into the lake inside her car. She should have been drowned to death."
I am very familar with the Susan Smith case, it happned in SC where I was raised. If you want to "personally" see people killed than why not get a job at the state prison and see if you can get into assisting the executioner and eventually working your way up to head executioner. How can you call yourself prolife and make statements like this is beyond me. Prolife means being against all legal forms of killing from conception until natural death. The right to life does not end at birth and it is sad that many in the prolife movement are not concerned about the baby once it leaves the mothers womb and that is why many on the prochoice side have an issue with us on the abortion stance.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Not literally "in-person". And I am not the same kind of pro-lifer as you. YOU cannot define ALL pro-lifers. Don't fall into the same trap as Yoda, who seems to think he too can define what pro-life is.

reply from: scopia19822

"Not literally "in-person". And I am not the same kind of pro-lifer as you. YOU cannot define ALL pro-lifers. Don't fall into the same trap as Yoda, who seems to think he too can define what pro-life is."
I am going by what my Church teaches and that is all life deserves protection from conception until natural death.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That's nice, YOU can be pro-life like that. But I am not pro-life like that. Just as your religion is your choice, and you do not have the right to force it upon others, you do not have a right to declare your brand of pro-life as the only "right" or "true" way to be pro-life.

reply from: Hosea

Susan Smith was suffering from post abortive depression. Her boyfreind made her have the abortion and he didn't want the other kids either. What she did was terribly wrong but our laws do not relect a consistant life first ethic as is written in the Declaration of independence and the Bill of rights of the constitution. She was wrong to any of those children.

reply from: cracrat

Ahh, but it's not Yoda doing the defining it's the all powerful dictionaries, the arbiters of English, the determiners of words and the backers of arguments of cantankerous old men!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Ahh, but it's not Yoda doing the defining it's the all powerful dictionaries, the arbiters of English, the determiners of words and the backers of arguments of cantankerous old men!
Lol! Or so he'd like us to think

reply from: coco

YES you are not the only one dad, I too consider myself prolife and against ANY type of death. I grapple with the self defense issue, I am unsure about that. But I am with you.

reply from: scopia19822

"Susan Smith was suffering from post abortive depression. Her boyfreind made her have the abortion and he didn't want the other kids either. What she did was terribly wrong but our laws do not relect a consistant life first ethic as is written in the Declaration of independence and the Bill of rights of the constitution. She was wrong to any of those children."
She was emotionally disturbed that is for sure. I dont think executing her would have done a bit of good, as it is she will be in prison for the rest of her life and she has to live with what she done everyday for the rest of her life. She was also molested as a child.

reply from: scopia19822

"That's nice, YOU can be pro-life like that. But I am not pro-life like that. Just as your religion is your choice, and you do not have the right to force it upon others, you do not have a right to declare your brand of pro-life as the only "right" or "true" way to be pro-life."
From a logically stand point it seems hypocritical to oppose abortion and support the death penalty.

reply from: carolemarie

Susan Smith was a nut case. She killed her boys so she could date a guy who didn't want kids. She was obviously crazy.
We don't execute crazy people.
I think you can be prolife and for the death penelty, I am just not for it. What if the person was innocent? One would be one too many. Lock them up forever.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Only if you apply the label pro-life to things outside of abortion. I don't.

reply from: savebabies2008

I'm also very much pro-life,always been and always will. In the death penality i'm against. In the bibleGod doesn't give anyone to take a life. What gives you the right to kill them? You are taking matters in your own hands. Thats just what i think

reply from: LiberalChiRo

God makes his followers kill a LOT of people in the Bible, what parts have you been missing?

reply from: scopia19822

"Only if you apply the label pro-life to things outside of abortion. I don't."
I most certainly do, the right to life does not end at birth and sadly you do have many prolifers who are only concerned about the baby in the womb, but not once it is born. I think abortion , assisted suicide, capital punishment , and euthanasia are all equal atrocities and morally wrong. Life must be protected from conception until natural death.

reply from: CharlesD

I take the position that taking innocent life is wrong. I support the death penalty in extreme cases only. I do have respect for someone who opposes it on religious grounds, even if I don't agree with that. If that's what your church teaches, then at least you're being consistent. There are instances where the taking of life is justifiable, just not the taking of innocent life. If you're a soldier in a war or if you're acting in self defense I think you're not guilty of murder.

reply from: carolemarie

The purpose of jail is to restrain and correct the evil doers. If a person is a danger to others, then we lock them up. There is no need to kill them.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That's exactly how I feel too. Were we separated at birth!?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Killing them is not just about removing them from society, it is about punishing them. If they killed someone, why do THEY still deserve to live? In my opinion, they don't.

reply from: CharlesD

Seeing as how I was in high school when you were born, that might have been somewhat difficult.
Spring chicken.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Seeing as how I was in high school when you were born, that might have been somewhat difficult.
Spring chicken.
That made me chuckle. XD

reply from: yoda

When I am called "very strange" by someone like you, I feel proud.
We must measure and weigh the possibility of "helping someone learn the difference between right and wrong" against the possibility of that same someone killing more little girls. I personally think there are distinct limits to what we can "help someone learn", and knowing the difference between right and wrong falls outside those limits, IMHO. That knowledge is intrinsic, and cannot be "taught". Therefore, I consider the prevention of more little girls being stabbed in the head with scissors more important than "helping them learn". And there is no better protection against a repeat of such a crime than capital punishment.

reply from: yoda

No need to be sorry, everyone is entitled to their opinion/feeling on the subject. But I can tell you, being prolife has nothing to do with it.

reply from: yoda

You mean, like as in "cold blooded abortion"?

reply from: yoda

You poor, wretched person. You repeat that crap over and over, as if it actually meant something.
Let me spell it out for you very clearly...... I D-O N-O-T D-E-F-I-N-E A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G. There, did you get that? I DON'T DEFINE ANYTHING!!
DICTIONARIES DEFINE WORDS!! NOT.... I REPEAT.... NOT ME!!
Did you get it that time, or do I need to repeat it a few thousand times????

reply from: yoda

Wow, someone who actually thinks........ amazing!
To be fair, however, dictionaries are observers of how the public uses words, not the "arbiters or determiners".
Except, of course, to blatant liars who wish to redefine words to suit their own purposes....... to them, dictionaries make it all up.

reply from: yoda

No, I'd just like for you to actually THINK....... once in a while, rather than shoot from the lip!

reply from: cracrat

When I am called "very strange" by someone like you, I feel proud.
We must measure and weigh the possibility of "helping someone learn the difference between right and wrong" against the possibility of that same someone killing more little girls. I personally think there are distinct limits to what we can "help someone learn", and knowing the difference between right and wrong falls outside those limits, IMHO. That knowledge is intrinsic, and cannot be "taught". Therefore, I consider the prevention of more little girls being stabbed in the head with scissors more important than "helping them learn". And there is no better protection against a repeat of such a crime than capital punishment.
Nobody is suggesting he should be allowed out into society, particularly not before rehabilitation and there would always be the very real possibility he'd spend the rest of his life in one institution or another. There is no limit to what a person can be taught. A newborn child is an empty vessel save for a few instincts (avoid pain, cry when you're hungry etc.) and it can be filled with whatever the principle carer chooses. I could indoctrinate a child to believing the world is flat or that the colour red is in fact green. At the more extreme end, I could teach a child that the Holocaust was completely justified, Christians only want you in their church so that they can eat your brains or that stabbing a little girl in the head with a pair of scissors is neither wrong nor a crime. The only limit is your imagination. On the flip side of that coin, anybody can have anything un-taught. Given time and resources, GodsLaw could be taught that Muslims aren't actually going to cause the end of the world, Chruchmouse that God doesn't exist and you that abortion is in fact a really good idea and you should devote the rest of your days to expanding peoples' access to it. For society to kill someone because they might prove too challenging to rehabilitate is, in my view, grotesque and I am so very glad that such barbarism has been outlawed in this country.

reply from: yoda

For most prison systems, "rehabilitation" is a tragic joke. Most states are not willing to spend enough to even make a sham attempt at it, so it's not really a rational consideration in this discussion, IMO.
Killers can escape prisons, they can be paroled, they can kill again inside prison, and they can have their convictions overturned on technicalities that have nothing to do with guilt or innocence.... such as a faulty search warrant.
So called "life" sentences often are not for the rest of a killer's life. That's what has to be balanced against the possibility of "rehabilitating" a killer.
And yes, there are very definitely LIMITS to what we can teach, especially given the budgets of most states. To not recognize that is to live in a dream world. But NO ONE can teach basic morality to someone in their teens or later, you either have that by then, or you don't.

reply from: cracrat

It must be terribly gloomy living in your world of pessimism. I do hope you realise that you are advocating killing another human being because to keep them alive would prove too challenging. Innoncence aside, how is that any different to aborting a child for convenience?

reply from: yoda

I do hope you realize that you are totally twisting what I said, either intentionally or through ignorance.
I said nothing about it being "too challenging" to keep a killer alive. I said we have to weigh it against the possibility of him killing again.
And you CANNOT put innocence "aside", when considering capital punishment, or comparing it to abortion. IF unborn children were guilty of a capital offense, then you could make a valid comparison. But they are not, so there is no comparison.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

ProInformed - One of the problems with your blatant plagiarism is that you simply cut and paste haphazardly. Without knowing who or what "Stano" is, it is difficult for the reader to understand or even care what happens. (By the way, "Stano" is the subject of the article, so his full name should be in the very first paragaph but isn't, and FINALLY appears near the end of a very long article.)
Secondly, you add NOTHING to the cut-and-paste job to tie it in to the subject at hand. It defeats the entire purpose of your post, if it had a purpose at all. Are you commenting on the death penalty? Is this "Stano" a friend or relative? What are you trying to tell us? Are you commenting on abortion? I honestly don't know.
I am hoping you can do less copying of other peoples' writings, especially when you fail to cite the actual writer, and do a little more thinking of your own. It is much more interesting when you do so.
Thanks!

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Susan Smith was suffering from post abortive depression. Her boyfreind made her have the abortion and he didn't want the other kids either. What she did was terribly wrong but our laws do not relect a consistant life first ethic as is written in the Declaration of independence and the Bill of rights of the constitution. She was wrong to any of those children.
I'm fascinated by your conclusions. Susan Smith's "boyfriend", to whom she was pregnant the first time, was NOT the father of the two little boys that she killed, for one thing. Her entire story is so messy and confusing that it's hard to say exactly WHAT made her a murderer. Some pertinent facts:
Susan Leigh Vaughan Smith was born in Union, South Carolina on September 26, 1971. She was the only daughter born to Linda, a homemaker, and Harry, a firefighter who later worked in one of the textile mills that surrounded Union.
In 1960, Harry Ray Vaughan was twenty and Linda was seventeen and pregnant from a previous relationship when they married. Together, Harry and Linda had a son, Scotty, a daughter, Susan and they raised Linda's son, Michael. Harry and Linda's marriage had many conflicts and some of those conflicts escalated to the point where Harry became violent and threatened to kill Linda and then himself. Harry's violence was the result of his alcoholism and his obsession with the idea that Linda was unfaithful. During Susan's early childhood, her home life was very dysfunctional.
The turmoil in the Vaughan's household caused Susan and her older brother Scotty to be very frightened. They were especially frightened by the behavior of their parents toward one another. Before Susan entered preschool, her half-brother, Michael, tried to commit suicide by hanging himself. Michael was treated at Duke University Medical Center and at other residential treatment facilities during Susan's childhood. As a result of her turbulent home life, Susan was an unhappy child. The mother of one of her playmates described Susan as "unusual and sad." "Susan would stare in space, like she wasn't there."
Although Susan was a sad child, she was especially close to her father and would "light up" whenever Harry was around. In 1977, after seventeen years of marriage, Linda divorced Harry. Susan was six years old. Harry was devastated by the divorce; he became even more depressed and continued to drink heavily.
On January 15, 1978, five weeks after Harry and Linda's divorce became final, Harry Vaughan committed suicide. The suicide was preceded by an argument that Harry and Linda had that escalated and forced Linda to call the police. When the police officers arrived at Linda's house, they saw Harry strike Linda. The police report also noted that Harry had broken a window to gain entry into Linda's home. After the police came to Linda's home, Harry apparently feared that he would hurt someone and appealed to one of the police officers to take him to court so that he could have himself jailed.
Harry committed suicide by placing a gun between his legs and aiming the gun at his abdomen. Harry then pulled the trigger, mortally wounding himself, but he did not die immediately. Harry called 911 for assistance and was rushed to the hospital, but emergency surgery could not save his life. Harry was thirty-seven years old when he died.
Harry's suicide left a huge void in Susan's life. During her childhood, Susan would treasure two possessions: Harry's coin collection and a tape recording of his voice.
from: http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/smith/susan_3.html

To be continued another day.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Susan Smith was suffering from post abortive depression. Her boyfreind made her have the abortion and he didn't want the other kids either. What she did was terribly wrong but our laws do not relect a consistant life first ethic as is written in the Declaration of independence and the Bill of rights of the constitution. She was wrong to any of those children.
I'm fascinated by your conclusions. Susan Smith's "boyfriend", to whom she was pregnant the first time, was NOT the father of the two little boys that she killed, for one thing. Her entire story is so messy and confusing that it's hard to say exactly WHAT made her a murderer. Some pertinent facts:
Susan Leigh Vaughan Smith was born in Union, South Carolina on September 26, 1971. She was the only daughter born to Linda, a homemaker, and Harry, a firefighter who later worked in one of the textile mills that surrounded Union.
In 1960, Harry Ray Vaughan was twenty and Linda was seventeen and pregnant from a previous relationship when they married. Together, Harry and Linda had a son, Scotty, a daughter, Susan and they raised Linda's son, Michael. Harry and Linda's marriage had many conflicts and some of those conflicts escalated to the point where Harry became violent and threatened to kill Linda and then himself. Harry's violence was the result of his alcoholism and his obsession with the idea that Linda was unfaithful. During Susan's early childhood, her home life was very dysfunctional.
The turmoil in the Vaughan's household caused Susan and her older brother Scotty to be very frightened. They were especially frightened by the behavior of their parents toward one another. Before Susan entered preschool, her half-brother, Michael, tried to commit suicide by hanging himself. Michael was treated at Duke University Medical Center and at other residential treatment facilities during Susan's childhood. As a result of her turbulent home life, Susan was an unhappy child. The mother of one of her playmates described Susan as "unusual and sad." "Susan would stare in space, like she wasn't there."
Although Susan was a sad child, she was especially close to her father and would "light up" whenever Harry was around. In 1977, after seventeen years of marriage, Linda divorced Harry. Susan was six years old. Harry was devastated by the divorce; he became even more depressed and continued to drink heavily.
On January 15, 1978, five weeks after Harry and Linda's divorce became final, Harry Vaughan committed suicide. The suicide was preceded by an argument that Harry and Linda had that escalated and forced Linda to call the police. When the police officers arrived at Linda's house, they saw Harry strike Linda. The police report also noted that Harry had broken a window to gain entry into Linda's home. After the police came to Linda's home, Harry apparently feared that he would hurt someone and appealed to one of the police officers to take him to court so that he could have himself jailed.
Harry committed suicide by placing a gun between his legs and aiming the gun at his abdomen. Harry then pulled the trigger, mortally wounding himself, but he did not die immediately. Harry called 911 for assistance and was rushed to the hospital, but emergency surgery could not save his life. Harry was thirty-seven years old when he died.
Harry's suicide left a huge void in Susan's life. During her childhood, Susan would treasure two possessions: Harry's coin collection and a tape recording of his voice.
from: http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/smith/susan_3.html
">http://www.trutv.com/library/c...th/susan_3.html
To be continued another day.
It's sad that people are mentally deranged such as Susan and her dad. They seemed incapable of having a loving, caring fruitful life. Instead, madness drove them to nightmarish realities.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You mean, like as in "cold blooded abortion"?
No. I do not consider abortion murder.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

You mean, like as in "cold blooded abortion"?
No. I do not consider abortion murder.
Huh? How can you say that?
Abortion is the deliberate killing of another living human being. How could it not be murder?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You mean, like as in "cold blooded abortion"?
No. I do not consider abortion murder.
Huh? How can you say that?
Abortion is the deliberate killing of another living human being. How could it not be murder?
So is warfare. So is self defense. There are many situations where you deliberately take life and it is not murder. I consider abortion manslaughter. Why? Because the woman is under stress. She has been trained and fooled by society into thinking that this is the best choice.

reply from: Rosalie

I have to wonder why you cannot accept the fact that women are neither stupid or brainwashed.

reply from: cracrat

I have to wonder why you cannot accept the fact that women are neither stupid or brainwashed.
Assuming that all these women are either bloodthirsty monsters or brainwashed idiots means that pro-lifers don't have to face the uncomfortable truth, ie that 95%+ of women who get abortions just don't give a sh1t either way. I was talking to my sister about this (she's a GP so has to refer women for abortion occassionally) and she reckoned that pretty much every woman understands that it's a baby, they understand that the abortion is going to kill it but ultimately they don't want to be pregnant so those two facts don't matter to them.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

I have to wonder why you cannot accept the fact that women are neither stupid or brainwashed.
Of course, what LiberalChiRo said is true. Men, women and children are all trained and fooled by society into believing wrong choices are good choices. I experienced this myself while growing up. That is why I want to make sure the next generation of children are taught right things, not wrong things. People accept the norm, even if it's really, really bad.
Jeremiah 16:19 "Surely our fathers have inherited lies, worthless and unprofitable things."
I don't want my kids inheriting lies. Our society teaches unprofitable things. The kids swallow it up as the gospel truth.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Susan's Smith's background, continued:
(This is in response to the person who stated flat-out that, "Susan Smith was suffering from post abortive depression. Her boyfreind made her have the abortion and he didn't want the other kids either.")
In a previous post, I reported that her parents were a 20-year-old man and his 17-year-old girl who was already pregnant from another relationship when they married. They had 3 children (one was the child with whom Susan's mother was pregnant when her parents met) and had a very violent and turbulent relationship, during which time Susan's alcoholic father threatened to kill his wife and then himself. He was absurdly jealous and thought that his wife was cheating on him. The home life was in so much turmoil that Susan and her older brother were very frightened of their parents. Their half-brother tried to commit suicide and was commited to residential treament facilities.
Despite the horrible home life, Susan was attached to her father. When she was 6 years old, her mother divorced her father. He became even more depressed and continued to drink heavily. Five weeks after the divorce was finalized, Susan's fahter committed suicide after a fight that drew the police when he broke into his wife's house and hit his wife. He shot himself and died at the age of 37.
Susan's mother remarried two weeks after her divorce to Beverly Russell, a wealthy businessman who was an executive committeeman in the state Republican party and a member of the advisory board of the Christian Coalition, who had several daughters from a previous marriage. Without the violence and drinking of her birth parents' marriage, Susan thrived, got good grades in school and joined in many activities including voluteerism. But she was hiding a dreadful secret - her stepfather was molesting her since she was 15.
She reported the sexual abuse to the sheriff's office and, for a while, went to counseling while her stepfather lived elsewhere. A short time later, Beverly returned to the family home. Her family was afraid that the reports of sexual abuse would be made public, and Susan was not only blamed for her stepfather's behavior, but the molestation continued unabated. At 17, Susan Smith once again reported the abuse to her mother and her high school guidance counselor. Her mother confronted her husband, who did NOT deny the accusations. However, Susan was convinced to not file charges. A sealed agreement was made between the attorneys involved so that the details would never be made public.
During the summer between Susan's junior and senior years of high school, she worked at a local grocery store, eventually being promoted to bookkeeper. In her senior year, she began to secretly date a older, married co-worker. She soon became pregnant and had an abortion. She was, at the same time, dating another co-worker. When the married man found out about the other man, he ended the relationship, sending Susan into a deep depression and causing her to attempt suicide. During her hospitalization, it was discovered that she had also tried to commit suicide at the age of 13.
While working at the supermarket, Susan became acquainted with another co-worker, David Smith, whose mother, a devout Jehovah's Witness, kept him sheltered from outside influences because of her religious beliefs. Both David and his father rebelled against the strict faith, and David left home at the age of seventeen. Despite being engaged to another woman, David and Susan began to date and, after about a year of dating, Susan discovered that she was pregnant. Immediately, David broke off his engagement.
Susan and David decided to get married because they were BOTH against Susan having an abortion. Susan's mother and stepfather were displeased because David did not have a college education and was not from the same economic background as Susan.
Shorty thereafter, David's older brother died from complications of Crohn's Disease. Eleven days after his death, David and Susan were married. Susan was 19 years old and two months pregnant. David was 20. Susan's mother, despite the fact that David's family was dealing with the tragic death of his brother, was concerned that Susan's pregnancy would begin to show and insisted that the wedding go on as scheduled.
Three months after the wedding, David's father attempted to commit suicide. He was hospitalized and treated for depression. (Obviously there was a strong history of depression and suicide in BOTH families.)
Susan worked at the same supermarket until she went into labor, and on October 10, 1991, she gave birth to Michael Daniel Smith. Afterward she continued to work part-time and enrolled in several college courses. The marriage quickly began to become tense, mostly due to money problems and the habit that Susan's mother had of offering unsolicited advice about the marriage which Susan felt obligated to follow. In addition, David was now Susan's boss at the grocery store. There were a number of extramarital affairs by both parties, and by their third anniversary David and Susan had separated several times.
They kept trying to work out their problems, and in November 1992 Susan again became pregnant. Her pregnancy this time was unhappy and there were numerous arguments and fights between Susan and David. Their second son Alexander was born on August 5, 1993 by emergency C-section. Within 3 wekks, the marriage was over and David was living elsewhere. Less than a year later, they tried AGAIN to make their marriage work, but Susan filed for divorce on the grounds of adultery on September 21. Susan had been dating another man, but he was really not interested in being part of her domestic drama and broke up with her via a "Dear John" letter shortly after she filed for divorce from David.
Over the next year, Susan had become extremely depressed and had begun drinking. On Tuesday, October 25, 1994, she murdered her two young sons by pushing her car with the boys inside into a lake.
Now, somebody tell me just how this can be interpreted as Susan Smith having post-abortion depression. Somebody also please tell me how where this story says ANYTHING about how she and her "boyfriend" (who was actually her husband) did not want "more" children, when they in fact got married because NEITHER of them wanted her to abort and when he was not the same man who originally caused the pregnancy she aborted.
If you cannot get your facts straight about well-known news stories like this, please don't bother trying to twist the story for your own pathetic prolife purposes. There are many sources available for the truth - you do not have to tell lies.
In all probability, Susan Smith's problems were the result of being sexually molested by her own stepfather as a young teen, and exacerbated by a history of suicide attempts and depression in her family and in her husband's family.
If you can see one darn thing "pro-abortion" in this disgustingly horrible true story, please explain it to me, because I see so many other problems that not only contributed to her murdering her children, but also were most probably a big reason why she had the one and only abortion that she did have.
Thank you for taking the time to read my research. The original source is:
http://www.trutv.com/library/c...th/susan_3.html

reply from: Rosalie

I have to wonder why you cannot accept the fact that women are neither stupid or brainwashed.
Of course, what LiberalChiRo said is true. Men, women and children are all trained and fooled by society into believing wrong choices are good choices. I experienced this myself while growing up. That is why I want to make sure the next generation of children are taught right things, not wrong things. People accept the norm, even if it's really, really bad.
Jeremiah 16:19 "Surely our fathers have inherited lies, worthless and unprofitable things."
I don't want my kids inheriting lies. Our society teaches unprofitable things. The kids swallow it up as the gospel truth.
No, it absolutely wasn't. I'm sorry that so many of you think other people are so stupid or brainwashed.
I wonder WHY it is so unthinkable for you to admit the fact that we know exactly what abortion is and we know why we have the right to have an abortion.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics