TexasCHLforum.com

The death penalty, IF the accused is guilty, serves justice; and that is all the justification it needs. The founders very well understood the concepts of cruel and unusual punishment, or they would not have written the term into the Constitution (8th Amendment). And yet, capital punishment has existed in the United States going all the way back to the ratification of the original document and the Bill of Rights, and beyond. For those who have Biblical objections, the various definitions of homicide and its punishments are clearly and unequivocally stated in the Old Testament; and it makes clear distinctions between accidental homicide, negligent homicide, passion killings, and premeditated murder. The 6th Commandment even translates properly as "you shall not murder" (not "you shall not kill"). And as far the the New Testament is concerned, Jesus himself said he came to complete the Law, not to abolish it.

I'm not trying to make a religious argument here, but I think that it is safe to say that our society and culture is (or at least was before the commies took over) based primarily on Judeo-Christian principles, and even those who are totally secularized benefit from much of those principles. One doesn't have to be a religious person to believe that it is wrong to murder, to steal, to lie, to disrespect one's parents, etc., etc.

Koolaid, with all due respect, do you think it is more or less costly to the taxpayers to keep a person in a medically induced coma than it is to lock up and keep alive a convicted murderer for life? The standards used will be the same standards used to keep you or me in a medically induced coma for any given particular reason, and the cost of it will run into the thousands of dollars a day. Don't the taxpayers have any rights in the matter? Also, and I'm not asking for your reasons, but simply your stance, are you for or against a "right" to abortion, and do you admit to any inconsistency between your view of a murderer's right to life and an unborn baby's right to life? I ask these things because I sometimes find that people who oppose one but not the other have not thought their philosophical positions all the way through.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

canvasbck wrote:Please tell me that HB164 has zero chance of seeing the floor.

I'd be in shock if it gets to the floor! That said, if it gets a hearing in committee, I'll issue a call-to-action on this bill. This is probably just Rep. Dutton's grandstanding for his constituents.

Chas.

Since I don't know a thing about Dutton, are his constituents more likely to find themselves the beneficiaries of HB164 than say, my representative's constituents?