Michigan Votes Forum

have us believe that there is NO crime which is heinous enough to justify the loss of life of even A SINGLE MURDERER.

new republic. "There is barely a country in Europe where the death penalty was abolished in response to public opinion rather than in spite of it. In other words, if these countries' political cultures are morally superior to America's, it's because they're less democratic." -- Joshua Marshall, writing in The New Republic

morality of capital punishment. "how can murder be taken seriously if the penalty isn't equally as serious? A crime, after all, is only as severe as the punishment that follows it. As Edward Koch once said: "It is by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life that we affirm the highest value of human life." Award-winning Chicago journalist Mike Royko strongly defended this position by stating: "When I think of the thousands of inhabitants of Death Rows in the hundreds of prisons in this country...My reaction is: What's taking us so long? Let's get that electrical current flowing. Drop those pellets [of poison gas] now! Whenever I argue this with friends who have opposite views, they say that I don't have enough regard for the most marvelous of miracles - human life. Just the opposite: It's because I have so much regard for human life that I favor capital punishment. Murder is the most terrible crime there is. Anything less than the death penalty is an insult to the victim and society. It says..that we don't value the victim's life enough to punish the killer fully."

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 2267 - The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. ?If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

2267 - The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, [this means that, no matter what all else it says, that they believe that the death penalty IS the proper punishment for the heinous crime of killing another human being. that no matter HOW wishy-washy they become later in this paragraph, they still stand up for the victim. it's because i hold ALL life, especially the victim's so dear that i believe in, and support the death penalty. you, it seems, do not either hold all life dear, or support the death penalty. you ONLY HOLD THE LIFE OF THE MURDERER DEAR, and you would use a wishy-washy statement by a wishy-washy pope to back your beliefs up. it's the only thing you quote. you must have no other beliefs. SAVE THE MURDERER is your motto.] when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. [the death penalty, no matter how grievously the catholic church errs in it's interpretation, is not correct in it's assumption that the death penalty is there to protect. it's not. it's there to PUNISH. you don't understand, and neither did the pope. he's dead, and you are pig-headed.] ?If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons,[bloodless? this from the people who brought us burning witches and THE INQUISITION? GET REAL.] public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. [what about the DIGNITY OF THE VICTIM??? it CHEAPENS THE VICTIM when you DISCOUNT HIS LIFE in PREFERENCE TO THE LIFE OF THE MURDERER.] Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

our opponent quotes the same, tired old paragraph from the catholic catechism. it seems that he thinks it's the only thing that is going to save his cause. he believes that he is using shame to stop the catholics out there from supporting the death penalty. that thought couldn't be further from the truth. in fact, it's leading catholics to see the real truth behind the death penalty. the real truth is, if we DON'T execute murderers, we say that life, especially the life of the victim, is cheap. if we DON'T execute murderers, we say that it's perfectly okay to kill us at will. we are expendable, but murderers are not. our opponent is WISHING that shame worked like that, but it doesn't. shame on him.

dignity you care about is the murderer's. you don't care about the dignity of the victim, or his right to live. his right to be defended against the murderer, and, barring that, his right to be vindicated. the murderer has already thrown his life away by committing the SIN of murder, and even YOU have to admit that THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH. the catholics believe it. why don't you?

catholic catechism. "2260 The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God's gift of human life and man's murderous violence: For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning. . . . Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.59 The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life.60 This teaching remains necessary for all time. 2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous."61 The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere."

hasn't read. "2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility."

the one our opponent prefers. "2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party."

THE ONE OUR OPPONENT PREFERS. "2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance."

from the catholic catechism that our opponent has not 'cherry picked' from. i wonder why that is? could it be that, instead of staying the hand of justice, it emboldens it to do it's sacred duty? would a 'true conservative' move us away from long held traditions simply to serve his ends? in this case, our opponent, a true liberal, would. he would have us move away from thousands of years of precedent and law, and towards the end of civilized society simply to quell his squeamish heart. he cannot stand to see a murderer pay the penalty for his deeds. he cannot stand to see justice done. he cannot stand to see the Lord's word carried out.

"cherry picked" the one and only passage in the catholic catechism that speaks somewhat against the death penalty. he has picked it because it speaks against the death penalty, but only in the most vague way. he couldn't find any other passage that spoke against what he considers the murder of murderers. he purposefully bypassed several OTHER passages that DO speak strongly in FAVOR of capital punishment, but chose the "wishy-washy" one instead. he cannot even come up with a moral arguement that supports his position, other than the fact that he cannot bear to see one of his beloved murderers pay the ultimate price. as a person who has lost loved ones to murder, and worked in law enforcement in another state, i can tell you from personal experience that the death penalty gives closure to the victim's family and friends, and justice to the victim. as for deterrence, i once had a violent felon who had a shotgun pointed at my face, who did not fire, stating during questioning "i didn't want to kill him, it would mean i would AUTOMATICALLY GET THE CHAIR." i stand as living proof of the deterrent value of the death penalty, but our opponent doesn't see it that way. he discounts the facts presented to him just as he discounts the lives of the victims his beloved murderers take.

i read all those other passages that the so-called proponents of capital punishment posted here and thought those guys had seen the light and done a flip-flop. every one of their quotes speaks eloquently against deliberate killing, which is, of course, exactly what the death penalty is when you pluck away all the fig leaves draped over it.

local murderer too? he has deliberately killed, and i don't hear you uttering one word about abolishing HIM. you wish to preserve HIS life at all costs, but not the victim's. you got something AGAINST innocent victims?

wanted to read, none of them spoke against deliberate killing, they all spoke against deliberate MURDER. if that was all you got out of it, you need to go back to some michigan public school and REALLY LEARN TO READ THIS TIME.

I could be wrong but I thought to change the constitution there had to be a public vote.I think all issues that are so divided as this one should be put on the November ballot and let the public decide and whatever the majority rules should stand as law.I mean every thirty years or so public opinion on social issues change so in twenty or thiry years throw it out again and see if popular opinion has changed.Let the people decide that is how a free society should work by the people.

the author of this bill is trying to do. but the opponents don't seem to want to let him. they seem to be worried that the death penalty will pass if brought before the public. so they keep it locked up in a liberally controlled committee. where it may never see the light of day. it seems that the liberals don't trust you to vote their way.

during past legislative sessions dominated by "conservatives" similar resolutions have remained bottled up in committees. one must give due attention to history.

there has been a legislative session dominated by republicans? with all the unions here, i don't see that as happening, especially during the 'carter years'. this state has always been a predominately democrat state, thanks to the large urban areas, and the unions.

never been "conservative". it's always been a liberal state, no matter which party was in power. the 'big three' made sure that the coffers WERE full (not anymore), and the tax and spend legislatures could happily go on taxing and spending. as long as there were good jobs, the people were more than happy to let government be as liberal as it wanted to be.

this issue been put to a 'real vote of the people'?

I am an idiot it say's that right in the bill.I got to stop doing this at 5:00 am to early.But anyway I don't see why any government would not pass this it's basically just getting permission for voters to decide and that's how it should be.

I don't understand why they would be scared of the voters.I mean Jenny won most state wide votes fall to the democrats court so why not embrace the idea of something going before the voters.I mean if it's a november election year it just draws out more people which is what they want.

disagree. they believe that we are far too stupid to ever vote on this issue. they believe that, in our ignorance, we would be murdering poor innocent murderers.

Tweedle-Dee posts: “how long has it been since there has been a legislative session dominated by republicans?” The answer, Tweedle, is about 8 months. The legislature was controlled by Republicans in both houses during the 2004-06 session.

to tweedle dumb. now, how big was the 'MAJORITY'? one, maybe two votes? how long has it been this way? four years? that must explain why so much POSITIVE legislation got accomplished. give us another 170 years, and we'll have michigan at the top of the lists where is should be. all we have to do is stop the other tweedle-dumbs out there from electing a democrat as governor and president

hasn't come up with a valid reason for being against the death penalty, other than the fact that it kills off his precious murderers. he still ALSO hasn't come up with a SINGLE FACTUALLY INNOCENT PERSON WHO WAS EXECUTED. he also will not quote any other paragraph in the catholic catechism other than the one that SORT OF speaks against the death penalty. no moral arguement as of yet either. i'd say his position was on shaky ground. he still professes to 'value all life', but hasn't mentioned victims until pressed, and then only in passing. a cursory 'we mourn for the victims'. he has been shown some moral arguements in favor of capital punishment from sources ranging from supreme court justices to the bible. yet he cannot grasp the moral implications of allowing heinous murderers to live. morals are the difference between RIGHT AND WRONG. it's wrong to allow heinous murderers to live, to do so cheapens the lives of those they murdered. to do so places the entire population at risk. and to do so goes against what we have been taught since man first learned to walk. murder is the ultime crime, which deserves the ultimate punishment. if you think that life without parole is the ultimate punishment, then why are you sentencing your burglars to death?

sport, tweedle dumb, i can do it all day. you sure you want to go that way? it doesn't do anything for your side of the arguement, but if you INSIST, i can call you worse names than you can call me. have a good day, murderer lover.

notice that this paragraph, "2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance." says NOTHING about those who bring the murderer and those that co-operate voluntarily in murder to justice, including executing them. i'll bet you WISH that it did, but it DOESN'T.

It is good to see you raising the question of religious morality in respect to the death penalty again. It provides legitimate opportunity to comment on the cherry picking you and tweedle dee have been doing on the Catholic Catechism. At most, in respect to the debate over capital punishment, all the various cherry-picked quotes from the Catholic Catechism posted here by death penalty promoters do is legitimize punishing murderers. Nobody questions or disputes the proposition that murderers should be punished. What stands in question is whether that punishment should be death at the hands of the state. The Catholic Catechism speaks directly and unambiguously to that specific question here: “2267 - Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” Not one of those additional paragraphs cherry-picked from the Catechism and posted by death penalty promoters here contradicts the message in paragraph 2267. One paragraph the cherry-pickers left out is this: “2259 In the account of Abel's murder by his brother Cain, Scripture reveals the presence of anger and envy in man, consequences of original sin, from the beginning of human history. Man has become the enemy of his fellow man. God declares the wickedness of this fratricide: ‘What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.’” and another: “2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, ‘You shall not kill,’ and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies. He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.”

INCLUDED THEM in your posts. they speak against killing your brother, murdering him. it always speaks against murder, it also says nothing about killing the killer. these posts are important not only for what they say, but for what they DON'T say. they don't say a word about NOT punishing the murderer, in fact, they ALL say that God seeks retribution for the sin of murder, and that man may exact a part of that retribution. why do you deny this? it's right in front of you. but you intentionally SKIP OVER the parts that tell you so. it is a right, and a duty. the catholic catechism says so. the bible says so. the law says so. God says so. the only one who doesn't say so is YOU. that must make you aligned with the evil that is murder.

you, and those like you do not believe that punishing murderers, the ultimate criminals that have committed the ultimate crime, with the ultimate punishment. you want us to believe that we are being 'merciful' by sparing their lives. we are not. you talk of 'death by the state', and yet you have no problem with punishing juveniles with life in prison without parole, essentially a death sentence. where is you 'mercy' there? the truth is, there isn't any. you would have us show 'mercy' to the exclusion of punishment. you would have us show 'mercy' to the exclusion of retribution. you would have us show 'mercy' to the exclusion of consideration for the victims and their rights. no one can answer why, after reading all that has been posted about why it is right and just to put murderers to death, that you STILL believe that it isn't. you bleat about 'death by the state'. what about death at the hands of the murderer? don't you want to stop that??? obviously not. you want to keep him alive and well at public expense so that he MAY KILL AGAIN. is that your ultimate goal? it must be. you are working hard to promote exactly that, to the exclusion of logic and morals. you haven't shown how it is morally right to allow the killer of innocent human beings to remain alive at public expense. please do this before you go on bleating about 'death at the hands of the state'. and try not to let your love for the murderer spill out over the keyboard.

Nobody here has ever skipped over the well acknowledged fact that murder is a crime and is immoral. Nor has anyone here ever suggested that convicted murderers and other criminals should not be punished. Claims to the contrary are simply and patently false. All that ever has been in play here is whether Michigan should cast away its 170-year history of rejecting the death penalty -- killing the killer -- as a state response to crime. The Catholic Catechism speaks eloquently, directly and wisely to that issue, in paragraph 2267. Here is what it says: “2267 - The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender today are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” The key to this statement lies in its second sentence: “If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.” The simple fact is that bloodless means of defense against those who have committed murder are available to the state. We call them prisons, in which murderers are securely locked away from society. The final sentence in paragraph 2267 acknowledges that truth. Sentence one in paragraph 2267 includes an interesting and challenging proviso, saying that capital punishment is not excluded in traditional doctrine, “presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender.” This is not “beyond reasonable doubt” as to guilt; this is “full ascertainment” – absolute determination and certainty of it. The fact is, our trial court system is not very good at the “full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender” in capital cases. Since the death penalty was declared Constitutional in the USA in 1976, only about one out of eight or nine individuals sentenced to death have eventually been executed. The others – the overwhelming majority – wind up serving life sentences after their cases are reviewed in the appeals process. A few die of natural causes, and some die by committing suicide before they can be executed or their appeals completed. And then, the eventual legal exoneration of more than 120 persons in the United States sentenced to die at the hands of the state since 1973 tells us, loudly and clearly, that trial courts are quite fallible in achieving “full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility” of people they convict and sentence to die. Death penalty promoters respond to this by crowing about capital punishment critics’ inability to produce an example of a person judged to have been ”factually innocent” who subsequently was executed. Yet when challenged to demonstrate conclusively that no “factually innocent” has been executed, the death penalty promoters duck, dodge, rant, evade and try to change the subject. But all of those tactics do not change the truth, and the wise counsel and guidance in respect to capital punishment as provided by the Catholic Catechism in paragraph 2267, read in its entirety.

you mean that pointing out that there have been no cases of a factually innocent person being executed in the united states in the last hundred years or so is DUCKING AND DODGING? you have been challenged to find one, JUST ONE. you have failed. you duck and dodge the issue by turning it around. now, we do the exact same thing. if you cannot show ONE FACTUALLY INNOCENT PERSON WHO HAS BEEN EXECUTED IN THE LAST 100 YEARS, WE MUST SUBMIT THAT IT HAS NOT HAPPENED. your side has been looking for around 15 years or so. 15 plus years of concerted effort by the brightest minds in the legal profession, still turning up nothing. but you don't believe THEM. even the supreme court, which oversees EVERY EXECUTION IN THE UNITED STATES concedes that there have been none. but you don't believe THEM. no opponent has come up with any names of any factually innocent person being executed, but you don't believe THEM. who will you believe? no one. you will cling to your unproven theory that the capital punishment system routinely executes factually innocent people on a daily basis. show us YOUR PROOF that it HAS happened, or admit that it hasn't. because, lacking any proof that it HAS happened, you must admit that it HASN'T. unless logic escapes you.

first, you SKIP OVER the other four paragraphs in the catholic catechism that plainly state that murder is wrong, and that the murderer must pay a blood atonement. "for the victim's blood cries out to me from the ground" and "he who sheds innocent blood shall by man have his blood shed." that is, unless you are a catholic who doesn't believe in the bible. read it for yourself. you have also skipped over the ULTIMATE CRIME issue. you treat the ULTIMATE CRIME as if it were a simple burglary. you promise that the inmate is 'subdued' but murderers that still breathe can still kill, and they do. so much for your 'keeping the inmate subdued'. you would sacrifice other lives, albeit guilty lives, to the murderer just to keep the murderer alive. you would give him the opportunity to kill another inmate, or a guard, or to escape and kill again outside, or to be released by mistake. all are preventable. you only seem to have that one paragraph of the catechism to fall back on, and that one little line that says 'as long as the identity has been ascertained'. you require ABSOLUTE PROOF. you have it in several cases in michigan. Patrick Selepack ADMITTED TO KILLING THREE PEOPLE. is THAT PROOF ABSOLUTE ENOUGH FOR YOU? probably not. well, while you are skipping over, let's try NOT skipping over the other paragraphs in the catechism. try reading them, maybe (if you ARE truly a catholic) praying about it. i did. and i am on the RIGHT MORAL SIDE OF THIS DEBATE. you are not. if you are against killing, don't kill. but don't keep the state, the REST of the people from obtaining justice because of your weakness and love of the murderer. and yes, your continued insistance that murderers should NEVER get the ULTIMATE PUNISHMENT shows that you LOVE them more than you love the innocents they killed. so, if you come up with the name of a FACTUALLY INNOCENT PERSON BEING EXECUTED IN THE UNITED STATES IN THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS, please let us know. when you read the REST OF THE CATHOLIC CATECHISM, AND THE BIBLICAL VERSES FROM WHICH THEY SPRING, please let us know. when you RESEARCH THE CASES OF THE MURDERERS YOU LOVE SO MUCH, AND SEE WHAT THEY DID TO THE INNOCENT VICTIMS THEY KILLED, please let us know. when you LOOK A MURDERER IN THE EYE WHO HAS KILLED SEVERAL TIMES, AND WOULD KILL AGAIN IF ALLOWED TO, AND YOU CAN TELL ME THAT HE DESERVES TO LIVE, please let us know. your fervor to maintain the lives of these murderers is amazing, but not laudible. your unending desire to assure that the ultimate criminals never see true justice is predictable, but not laudible. you serve not THE PEOPLE, only the murderer. you support not the INNOCENT, only the vile and evil. you propose that the killer of innocents pay his debt by being fed, housed, and clothed till he closes his eyes in death. and you seek to postpone that date as long as you can, and make the wait as comfortable as possible. let's not skip over THAT fact next time either.

a death penalty opponent wrote... "And then, the eventual legal exoneration of more than 120 persons in the United States sentenced to die at the hands of the state since 1973 tells us, loudly and clearly, that trial courts are quite fallible in achieving “full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility” of people they convict and sentence to die." have you read the case histories of those 120 'exhonorations'??? i've read most of them. most of the ones i have read were exhonorated because the PRINCIPLES IN THE MURDER agreed beforehand to LIE IN COURT. the rest were exhonorated because witnesses are dead, and evidence has been destroyed. "eyewitnesses" that lie in court because they were coerced by the murderer, then recant later, are common in those cases. so, is it the STATE'S FAULT that these witnesses lied? NO. is it the STATE'S FAULT that the principles in these murders all 'put the rap' on one of their number, to allow the others to go free? NO. you wish that ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY was the standard of proof in a court of law, but it ISN'T. it cannot be, as we can't even be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that we EVEN EXIST. now, if you'd like to take a crack at proving to me with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that YOU exist... seeing as since i've never seen you, i'd be glad to let you try. now, none of these cases involve 'joe blow' off the street being arrested for murder with absolutely no evidence. they were all cases of multiple suspects, and deciding which one pulled the trigger. so, NONE of them are FACTUALLY INNOCENT. nice try though...

every year there are thousands who are executed in a most heinous and cruel manner, and each and every one of them is indeed FACTUALLY INNOCENT. THEY ARE THE VICTIMS OF MURDER. you care not for their innocence, or even their existance. yet you DO care for those that killed them.

rant. nice going, Tweedle.

rant. Tweedle Dee (or Tweedle Dum) strikes again!