The question is since we aren't supposed to kill how can we be in favor of the death penalty?
I mean isn't the wages of sin death?
How can we say that if Sam killed Paul he shouldn't die?
It is a touchy matter but needed to be discussed.
Please feel free to say your opinions
I am all for the death penalty.
Full Version: Death Penalty
In some cases I think it is right. Not for all cases of murder though.
It should be introduced for child rapists and mass murderers.
101 if this interests you then read the latest debate. It is quite interesting.
It should be introduced for child rapists and mass murderers.
101 if this interests you then read the latest debate. It is quite interesting.
a punishment as absolute as death should only be administered by those so absolute of purity of themselves.....
the willingness to kill for some self-imposed justification is a reflection of the impurities of a civilization. that is if we even dare call a society that is so willing to kill "in the name of" civilized at all.
the death penalty does nothing to deter crime. in fact, look at the violent crime rates for juristictions with vs without the dp and you will be surprised.
the willingness to kill for some self-imposed justification is a reflection of the impurities of a civilization. that is if we even dare call a society that is so willing to kill "in the name of" civilized at all.
the death penalty does nothing to deter crime. in fact, look at the violent crime rates for juristictions with vs without the dp and you will be surprised.
God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. - Romans 3:4
a punishment as absolute as death should only be administered by those so absolute of purity of themselves.....
the willingness to kill for some self-imposed justification is a reflection of the impurities of a civilization. that is if we even dare call a society that is so willing to kill "in the name of" civilized at all.
the death penalty does nothing to deter crime. in fact, look at the violent crime rates for juristictions with vs without the dp and you will be surprised.
I m using this example quite often recently ,but what about islamic countries?
the willingness to kill for some self-imposed justification is a reflection of the impurities of a civilization. that is if we even dare call a society that is so willing to kill "in the name of" civilized at all.
the death penalty does nothing to deter crime. in fact, look at the violent crime rates for juristictions with vs without the dp and you will be surprised.
I m using this example quite often recently ,but what about islamic countries?
I have written at great lengths on this subject, but in a nut shell:
The death penalty is not in and of itself a deterrent, nor is it a punishment. The death penalty is a way for society to make sure that the condemed have absolutely no possible way to ever walk the planet as free men and women. I contend that for as long as the criminals, that are judged by a jury of their peers to be a large enough threat to warrent the death penalty, are still alive there is always a chance that through error, or bad judgement, or just a simple escape they could walk among us again. By excecuting them the threat is removed. Just that simple. Let me ask would you trust Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, etc. etc. to ever be free? I am guessing that the answer is a loud no. But for as long as Charles Manson lives there is a chance he could find himself free and able to move about among us. Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer etc.etc. cannot ever have that happen because they are as dead as their victims.
The death penalty is not in and of itself a deterrent, nor is it a punishment. The death penalty is a way for society to make sure that the condemed have absolutely no possible way to ever walk the planet as free men and women. I contend that for as long as the criminals, that are judged by a jury of their peers to be a large enough threat to warrent the death penalty, are still alive there is always a chance that through error, or bad judgement, or just a simple escape they could walk among us again. By excecuting them the threat is removed. Just that simple. Let me ask would you trust Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, etc. etc. to ever be free? I am guessing that the answer is a loud no. But for as long as Charles Manson lives there is a chance he could find himself free and able to move about among us. Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer etc.etc. cannot ever have that happen because they are as dead as their victims.
and those that condone, or participate in the killing of killers are of the same class as the killers themselves. it is a false sense of security, and a false justification.
who is really more criminal: the one that kills out of rage, "bad wiring", etc; or the one that coldly sentences another to death for their own satisfaction.
who is really more criminal: the one that kills out of rage, "bad wiring", etc; or the one that coldly sentences another to death for their own satisfaction.
I am not attempting to justify the death penalty - that is a decision to be made by society as a whole, but if you folks have never had the pleasure of working within the penal system as I have; then you really have no idea what the truly wicked are like! I have seen people (I shudder when I call them that) that speak cheerfully of taking the life of men, women and children, in a a tone of voice that you and I would exchange pleasantries in. Most people have lived such sheltered lives (with the exception of military and intercity inhabitants) that they can't concieve what a "blessing" to humanity that the end of certain individual's lives would be! You may think I am calloused, but baby, I have been there, heard them and seen the results of their sickness (usually a horribly beaten corpse of a fellow inmate who wouldn't give the "monster" whatever he wanted)! I am not talkiing a small percentage of the prision population either, you'd be surprized how many of those folks will never fit in and will always be "ticking time bombs" amongst us. Incidentally twpdyp, the death penalty may not be a deterent the first time, but once the monster is dead, it is a definte prevention that that particular monster will never again wreak his wickness upon others - Mako 
@ Hyper, What if you were in a situation where you had a son and this is the only son you can have because you woman has become infertile. You end up losing your only son to a horrible man. He rapes him and kills him. This infurates you. What do you do? Do you wait for his God to judge him? Or do you seek you own justice?
Sorry such a mean example.
Sorry such a mean example.
QUOTE
Incidentally twpdyp, the death penalty may not be a deterent the first time, but once the monster is dead, it is a definte prevention that that particular monster will never again wreak his wickness upon others - Mako
Exactly the point I was attempting to make.
@ Hyper, What if you were in a situation where you had a son and this is the only son you can have because you woman has become infertile. You end up losing your only son to a horrible man. He rapes him and kills him. This infurates you. What do you do? Do you wait for his God to judge him? Or do you seek you own justice?
Sorry such a mean example.
That would be eye-for-an-eye, and personally I like this method more than death penalty.
Sorry such a mean example.
That would be eye-for-an-eye, and personally I like this method more than death penalty.
QUOTE(101 @ May 31 2005, 08:34 AM)
@ Hyper, What if you were in a situation where you had a son and this is the only son you can have because you woman has become infertile. You end up losing your only son to a horrible man. He rapes him and kills him. This infurates you. What do you do? Do you wait for his God to judge him? Or do you seek you own justice?
Sorry such a mean example.
[right][snapback]648888[/snapback][/right]
Sorry such a mean example.
[right][snapback]648888[/snapback][/right]
3 things:
would you judge a scorpion for stinging potential prey?
predators walk the planet. they have their role to play.
i lose my son to a horrible man. seeing him suffer, seeing him die does not change what has happened. in seeing him suffer nothing positive is produced from the event. it is false to assume that man outclasses nature. within every generation a certian % must die young
. if it is my son, than that is the way the probabilities played out. only that horrible man can judge him. from your a priori constructs of good and bad, you easily classify things as good or bad. i do use such constructs. i can more respect an animal for being itself than an animal for acting as a god.
3 things:
would you judge a scorpion for stinging potential prey?
predators walk the planet. they have their role to play.
i lose my son to a horrible man. seeing him suffer, seeing him die does not change what has happened. in seeing him suffer nothing positive is produced from the event. it is false to assume that man outclasses nature. within every generation a certian % must die young . if it is my son, than that is the way the probabilities played out. only that horrible man can judge him.
from your a priori constructs of good and bad, you easily classify things as good or bad. i do use such constructs. i can more respect an animal for being itself than an animal for acting as a god.
You might be confusing 2 different things.
Man is different from nature.Animals can t feel hate or pleasure.If they act a certain way,they do it because out of instincts.Man can think beyond instincts.That is the reason why there can be "evil persons"(whatever that means to you),but not evil animals.That s why I like animals more than humanity,but that wouldn t stop me from killing one.Out of instinct and self-preservation, not out of a sick pleasure.
would you judge a scorpion for stinging potential prey?
predators walk the planet. they have their role to play.
i lose my son to a horrible man. seeing him suffer, seeing him die does not change what has happened. in seeing him suffer nothing positive is produced from the event. it is false to assume that man outclasses nature. within every generation a certian % must die young . if it is my son, than that is the way the probabilities played out. only that horrible man can judge him.
from your a priori constructs of good and bad, you easily classify things as good or bad. i do use such constructs. i can more respect an animal for being itself than an animal for acting as a god.
You might be confusing 2 different things.
Man is different from nature.Animals can t feel hate or pleasure.If they act a certain way,they do it because out of instincts.Man can think beyond instincts.That is the reason why there can be "evil persons"(whatever that means to you),but not evil animals.That s why I like animals more than humanity,but that wouldn t stop me from killing one.Out of instinct and self-preservation, not out of a sick pleasure.
I use to support the death penalty. And then , especially with the changing tide of political climate in this country since 2001, I changed my mind.
I think it's contrary to the message a justice system tries to send to the population under it's authority, when States apply a death penalty to convicted murderer's, (and other's found guilty of a capital offense), to show people that killing people is wrong.
It's also dangerous to freedom and democracy to empower an entity, empowered by a community , to give that entity the authority to kill them, considering that the criminal justice system is not infallible in it's prosecution of alleged criminals.
There are many people who today sit on death row and are innocent of their crimes.
The motives that sustain the office of a district attorney to prosecute a case(s), is not always the call for justice. Often times it's a matter of getting re-elected to office, or curbing the public outcry by prosecuting someone, based solely on circumstantial evidence, just to calm the emotion's at large. Given that the criminal justice system is not incorruptible of motives other than that justice be served, I do not therefore empower them with my support of their right to murder.
Which is what the death penalty is; murder! Regardless of whether it is prescribed by government decree! And , as mentioned, given there are scores of innocent people who have suffered under that jurisdiction, it is also not an example of justice.
I think life or life without parole, is a more just sentence. That way in the event the accused is innocent, they have a chance at proving their case and living outside the confines of injustice. Where as, obviously, the death penalty is a permanent violation of an innocent's rights!
I think it's contrary to the message a justice system tries to send to the population under it's authority, when States apply a death penalty to convicted murderer's, (and other's found guilty of a capital offense), to show people that killing people is wrong.
It's also dangerous to freedom and democracy to empower an entity, empowered by a community , to give that entity the authority to kill them, considering that the criminal justice system is not infallible in it's prosecution of alleged criminals.
There are many people who today sit on death row and are innocent of their crimes.
The motives that sustain the office of a district attorney to prosecute a case(s), is not always the call for justice. Often times it's a matter of getting re-elected to office, or curbing the public outcry by prosecuting someone, based solely on circumstantial evidence, just to calm the emotion's at large. Given that the criminal justice system is not incorruptible of motives other than that justice be served, I do not therefore empower them with my support of their right to murder.
Which is what the death penalty is; murder! Regardless of whether it is prescribed by government decree! And , as mentioned, given there are scores of innocent people who have suffered under that jurisdiction, it is also not an example of justice.
I think life or life without parole, is a more just sentence. That way in the event the accused is innocent, they have a chance at proving their case and living outside the confines of injustice. Where as, obviously, the death penalty is a permanent violation of an innocent's rights!
An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind. ---Gandhi
QUOTE(Snake_6024 @ May 31 2005, 08:53 AM)
3 things:
would you judge a scorpion for stinging potential prey?
predators walk the planet. they have their role to play.
i lose my son to a horrible man. seeing him suffer, seeing him die does not change what has happened. in seeing him suffer nothing positive is produced from the event. it is false to assume that man outclasses nature. within every generation a certian % must die young . if it is my son, than that is the way the probabilities played out. only that horrible man can judge him.
from your a priori constructs of good and bad, you easily classify things as good or bad. i do use such constructs. i can more respect an animal for being itself than an animal for acting as a god.
You might be confusing 2 different things.
Man is different from nature.Animals can t feel hate or pleasure.If they act a certain way,they do it because out of instincts.Man can think beyond instincts.That is the reason why there can be "evil persons"(whatever that means to you),but not evil animals.That s why I like animals more than humanity,but that wouldn t stop me from killing one.Out of instinct and self-preservation, not out of a sick pleasure.
[right][snapback]648925[/snapback][/right]
would you judge a scorpion for stinging potential prey?
predators walk the planet. they have their role to play.
i lose my son to a horrible man. seeing him suffer, seeing him die does not change what has happened. in seeing him suffer nothing positive is produced from the event. it is false to assume that man outclasses nature. within every generation a certian % must die young . if it is my son, than that is the way the probabilities played out. only that horrible man can judge him.
from your a priori constructs of good and bad, you easily classify things as good or bad. i do use such constructs. i can more respect an animal for being itself than an animal for acting as a god.
You might be confusing 2 different things.
Man is different from nature.Animals can t feel hate or pleasure.If they act a certain way,they do it because out of instincts.Man can think beyond instincts.That is the reason why there can be "evil persons"(whatever that means to you),but not evil animals.That s why I like animals more than humanity,but that wouldn t stop me from killing one.Out of instinct and self-preservation, not out of a sick pleasure.
[right][snapback]648925[/snapback][/right]
man is not "different" from nature. man has developed some more "advanced" thinking processes, but he is not all that much different. the concept of the death penalty is more akin to the justice systems of chimpanzee communities than that of this supposed "higher order man". this desire for revenge, "justice" stems from the more basic/secondary parts of our brains, not our cherrishd cererbral cortex.
man is only evil to one because that one has classified the man as evil. it is a construct and that is all. i say there are no evil men, nor no good men. good/evil is just a dualistic idiocy.
Purely and simply, in my view, if you take an 'eye for an eye', you are bringing yourself down to their level. If we wish to punish murderers because life is sacred, we're breaking that ourselves, even if we may think that the murderer has forfeited their right to their life being sacred.
i think life - meaning life, and not 'probably released on parole in a few years' - is far more effective, as unless the murderer is truly mentally disturbed, being isolated from humanity for the rest of their life gives a chance to contemplate their acts and maybe genuinely repent.
... and then of course, what happens if the real murderer is found in a few years...?
i think life - meaning life, and not 'probably released on parole in a few years' - is far more effective, as unless the murderer is truly mentally disturbed, being isolated from humanity for the rest of their life gives a chance to contemplate their acts and maybe genuinely repent.
... and then of course, what happens if the real murderer is found in a few years...?
Man has the freedom of choice.Animals not.They can t ignore their instincts.Man can.
An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind. ---Gandhi
If the world thinks it is perfect and free from corruption, greed and hate,then it already is blind.
An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind. ---Gandhi
If the world thinks it is perfect and free from corruption, greed and hate,then it already is blind.
Purely and simply, in my view, if you take an 'eye for an eye', you are bringing yourself down to their level.
I have no problem with being a murderer.But I have a problem with seeing myself as someone,who I am not.
I have no problem with being a murderer.But I have a problem with seeing myself as someone,who I am not.
By committing a crime, the murderer volunteer himself to capital punishment which could have been easily advoided if he hadn't. They have to accept responsibility and rationality of their actions.
My problem with death penalty lies in the eye for an eye mentality that it supports. Personally I don't believe in revenge I think it's a useless waste of time and energy that I would rather not expend. It's also worth reiterating what has already been posted here regarding sinking to the level of the killer and weather or not society has the right to choose who gets to live or die.
Do we as a collective group of people have the right to end somebodies life based on the rules we have set for ourselves as a society? It would seem that in most cases of the death penalty you are either dealing with crimes of passion/ temporary loss of judgement or the mentally deranged, do either deserve to be killed or should we allow them at least the opportunity to be rehabilitated? In the case of a single act of murder or vengeance we have to ask ourselves if this person is likely to return to society and kill again or if it was just a one time loss of judgement, I think they deserve a punishment for their actions but they also deserve to be given a second chance.
In the case of mass murderers we are obviously dealing with mentally unstable people, if in the event that somebody does have a mental imbalance is it really proper for us to put them to death? Or do we as a society have a responsibility to study these individuals for the sake of preventing further cases, and make an attempt at curing what may be wrong with them in the first place?
In my own opinion I don't agree with state sponsored death it brings us down to the level of the individual who committed the crime and really makes us no different than the person we executed in the first place. What the govt does represents us as a people, every time we put somebody to death that execution is on the hands of every citizen in the country, and I for one don't want to be involved.
Do we as a collective group of people have the right to end somebodies life based on the rules we have set for ourselves as a society? It would seem that in most cases of the death penalty you are either dealing with crimes of passion/ temporary loss of judgement or the mentally deranged, do either deserve to be killed or should we allow them at least the opportunity to be rehabilitated? In the case of a single act of murder or vengeance we have to ask ourselves if this person is likely to return to society and kill again or if it was just a one time loss of judgement, I think they deserve a punishment for their actions but they also deserve to be given a second chance.
In the case of mass murderers we are obviously dealing with mentally unstable people, if in the event that somebody does have a mental imbalance is it really proper for us to put them to death? Or do we as a society have a responsibility to study these individuals for the sake of preventing further cases, and make an attempt at curing what may be wrong with them in the first place?
In my own opinion I don't agree with state sponsored death it brings us down to the level of the individual who committed the crime and really makes us no different than the person we executed in the first place. What the govt does represents us as a people, every time we put somebody to death that execution is on the hands of every citizen in the country, and I for one don't want to be involved.
Like I wrote the death penalty is not about revenge, deterrence, or punishment it is about the removal of threat. When Ted Bundy took his ride on Old Sparky, that execution removed a threat to society, because for as long as Ted Bundy breathed he was a threat. So let's forget all this talk of punishment, deterrence, or vengence because none of that applies to the death penalty. Let's take them one at a time shall we.
Punishment- You inflict a punishment on someone who you hold out hope for some form of rehabilitation and reintroduction into society.
Deterrence- Death is not a deterrent for the truly monsterous because they are not afraid to die. Murderers kill for their own preverted internal motivations fear of the death penalty never crosses their sick minds.
Vengence- Like the old saying says "those who seek vengence should first begin by digging 2 graves". Excecuting a murderer is a rather shallow form of vengence. Torture would satisfy the need for vengence better than execution because you would be able to see the pain inflicted and watch the condemed writh around in agony.
Removal of Threat- By cutting out the fangs of a beast you have removed the threat. By executing a murderer you have removed the "fangs" of a killer, you removed his thought processes which are his fangs. If for example you live in an area frequented by bears and one of them has already killed a person to remove the threat you kill the bear so that it cannot kill another human, you execute the bear. Transporting the killer bear to another location will not completely remove the threat this bear brings.
Punishment- You inflict a punishment on someone who you hold out hope for some form of rehabilitation and reintroduction into society.
Deterrence- Death is not a deterrent for the truly monsterous because they are not afraid to die. Murderers kill for their own preverted internal motivations fear of the death penalty never crosses their sick minds.
Vengence- Like the old saying says "those who seek vengence should first begin by digging 2 graves". Excecuting a murderer is a rather shallow form of vengence. Torture would satisfy the need for vengence better than execution because you would be able to see the pain inflicted and watch the condemed writh around in agony.
Removal of Threat- By cutting out the fangs of a beast you have removed the threat. By executing a murderer you have removed the "fangs" of a killer, you removed his thought processes which are his fangs. If for example you live in an area frequented by bears and one of them has already killed a person to remove the threat you kill the bear so that it cannot kill another human, you execute the bear. Transporting the killer bear to another location will not completely remove the threat this bear brings.
I still like the EFAE method,but I have 2 suggestions.
1.
A place to send criminals to,like Tasmania has been for the British.Not a society but a simple place somewhere in the jungle where you drop him out and let him try to survive on his own.It is highly unlikely for sick-minded mass murderers to survive, as they are formed by society and can not survive with out it.A simple criminal , who commited a crime to get him out of his current situation,is way more likely to survive for the reasons stated by twpdyp, so the punishment wouldn t be as severe,as he has the chance to become free.
2.
Removal of a threat=Fry his brain and make him a zombie.And I m actually serious.It works with voodoo and with the nanotechnology on the doorstep it can be realized in the near future.This way,you not only have got rid of the threat,but you have also gained a benefit to society and seeing the body of the criminal being subject to such an unhumane treatment could lessen the pain of the relatives of the victims(For the EFAE people out there).
1.
A place to send criminals to,like Tasmania has been for the British.Not a society but a simple place somewhere in the jungle where you drop him out and let him try to survive on his own.It is highly unlikely for sick-minded mass murderers to survive, as they are formed by society and can not survive with out it.A simple criminal , who commited a crime to get him out of his current situation,is way more likely to survive for the reasons stated by twpdyp, so the punishment wouldn t be as severe,as he has the chance to become free.
2.
Removal of a threat=Fry his brain and make him a zombie.And I m actually serious.It works with voodoo and with the nanotechnology on the doorstep it can be realized in the near future.This way,you not only have got rid of the threat,but you have also gained a benefit to society and seeing the body of the criminal being subject to such an unhumane treatment could lessen the pain of the relatives of the victims(For the EFAE people out there).
Bring back the death penalty the sooner the better, lets cut the cancer out of society.
QUOTE
Bring back the death penalty the sooner the better, lets cut the cancer out of society.
My thoughts exactly
Anyone unconvinced read the debate between kryso and duke of noodles
As I see it, they kill someone then sopend a few years in a jail cell
Wheres the justice in that? I say if they want to be protected by our laws they should abide by them
According to old testimont.
Two conflicting penalties for murder in the book of Genesis
Both instances of murder refer to an era that preceded the 613 commands of the Mosaic law code.
The first mention of the appropriate punishment for a murder is in Genesis 4:11-15.
"And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;...a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him." (KJV)
Adam and Eve's sons were Cain, a farmer, and Abel, a shepherd. Each brought the best that they had had produced as a sacrifice to God. God accepted Abel's sacrifice of meat but rejected Cain's grain offering. Cain's resultant disappointment turned to anger; he killed his brother. God cursed Cain for the murder and sent him to wander the earth. God also put a mark on Cain's body so that nobody who saw him would be motivated to kill him. If anyone killed Cain for the murder of his brother, that person would be very severely punished. Here, banishment and exile is the penalty for murder; capital punishment is specifically prohibited.
The first mention of capital punishment as a penalty for murder is in Genesis 9:6:
"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." (KJV) This passage regards the killing of a human as an offense against God because humans were made in the image of God, both male and female. Unlike the previous passage which required that the murderer be merely exiled, this verse required the murderer to be killed.
Capital crimes, according to rest of the the Hebrew Scriptures
The Biblical books Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy form the rest of the Pentateuch and contain the Mosaic Code - a set of civil and religious transgressions with their appropriate punishments. This set of 613 laws greatly expanded the range of crimes which were punishable by death.
If sufficient proof were provided that a person had committed any of the crimes listed below, the state imposed the death penalty on the guilty person(s). They were either stoned to death, impaled on a stick or burned alive. Witnesses who testified at the trial would often participate in the killing.
To their credit, the courts of ancient Israel required very high levels of proof of criminal behavior before they would order the death penalty.
Two conflicting penalties for murder in the book of Genesis
Both instances of murder refer to an era that preceded the 613 commands of the Mosaic law code.
The first mention of the appropriate punishment for a murder is in Genesis 4:11-15.
"And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;...a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him." (KJV)
Adam and Eve's sons were Cain, a farmer, and Abel, a shepherd. Each brought the best that they had had produced as a sacrifice to God. God accepted Abel's sacrifice of meat but rejected Cain's grain offering. Cain's resultant disappointment turned to anger; he killed his brother. God cursed Cain for the murder and sent him to wander the earth. God also put a mark on Cain's body so that nobody who saw him would be motivated to kill him. If anyone killed Cain for the murder of his brother, that person would be very severely punished. Here, banishment and exile is the penalty for murder; capital punishment is specifically prohibited.
The first mention of capital punishment as a penalty for murder is in Genesis 9:6:
"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." (KJV) This passage regards the killing of a human as an offense against God because humans were made in the image of God, both male and female. Unlike the previous passage which required that the murderer be merely exiled, this verse required the murderer to be killed.
Capital crimes, according to rest of the the Hebrew Scriptures
The Biblical books Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy form the rest of the Pentateuch and contain the Mosaic Code - a set of civil and religious transgressions with their appropriate punishments. This set of 613 laws greatly expanded the range of crimes which were punishable by death.
If sufficient proof were provided that a person had committed any of the crimes listed below, the state imposed the death penalty on the guilty person(s). They were either stoned to death, impaled on a stick or burned alive. Witnesses who testified at the trial would often participate in the killing.
To their credit, the courts of ancient Israel required very high levels of proof of criminal behavior before they would order the death penalty.
There is one contention against a theist argument in support of Capital punishment;
America is not a Theocracy! If it was, most of us would face arrest and execution, due to tenet violations!
America is not a Theocracy! If it was, most of us would face arrest and execution, due to tenet violations!
of course Jesus would.... he sends everyone to hell whether they killed someone or not 
Brit Gurl- not everyone to Hell. Just the people who haven't accepted him as their savior. 
Such a loving God - if he was a regular human, he'd face life in prison for extreme child abuse!
Mako u too. Oh goodness. well are you for or againist death penalty?
I am against it because they might as well suffer in prision instead of getting the easy way out......
QUOTE(brittish_gurl @ May 31 2005, 07:52 PM)
I am against it because they might as well suffer in prision instead of getting the easy way out......
[right][snapback]649309[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]649309[/snapback][/right]
Yeah some of them are just sick sometimes and get the thrill of dying. The bastards. But prison is like a hotel. There should be less eminities.
^ That unfortunately, won't happen to much of the more ruthless criminals...they're the one preforming the act while the one that has petty crimes are the victims. That is some justice!
Should punishment be the same as the crime? I mean death by stabbing= death by stabbing so on and so forth? This would make you think twice the sickos.
QUOTE
Brit Gurl- not everyone to Hell. Just the people who haven't accepted him as their savior.
I once asked a minister about that claim, and that if true, did it mean all of the Old Testament patriarchs are now burning in hell. His answer; Yes!Poor Eve and Adam, Isaiah and Jacob et al. And dear, dear Moses if only you would have known, I wonder if you would have gone to all that trouble....and for what!?
What Goddess? Where did you hear this I don't understand at all. This is news to me. 
I think the death penalty is extremely hypocritical. I mean that euthanasia is outlawed, and those people want to die due to terminal illnesses. But the people on death row I'm sure don't want to die, for the most part. I say that if capital punishment is legal, then euthanasia should be or vice versa.
Well not necessarily theomegacode, it's apples and oranges. In the case of capitol punishment you have somebody who willingly broke the law and now faces a penalty for their actions. In the case of euthanasia we are talking about people who haven't committed a crime and aren't deserving of any kind of penalty for their actions. In other words it comes down to their choice or request to die.
I disagree with the death penalty and think that euthanasia is okay (to a certain extent), but I don't think you can really compare the two.
I disagree with the death penalty and think that euthanasia is okay (to a certain extent), but I don't think you can really compare the two.
QUOTE(101 @ May 31 2005, 03:16 PM)
What Goddess? Where did you hear this I don't understand at all. This is news to me.
[right][snapback]649350[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]649350[/snapback][/right]
I feel your shock, believe me. I was stunned that some ministers actually hold to the notion! To my understanding it's known as; "Theological Exclusivism."
I've talked to a number of ministers, after my encounter with the first one, and thus far they all concur on the notion that without Christ and accepting him as savior, even the OT matriarchs & patriarchs, are in hell.
I was raised in a fundamentalist Baptist household, and I can still remember the sunday school's minister telling the kids that if they wanted god to hear their prayers, they had to attend church!
Of course that was strictly a marketing ploy on his part because the church was losing members to another one that had "opened" just recently and the pastor of our church hated competition for souls! No, that is not a joke, he really did! I think it's the tax exempt $tatus that makes some people greedy and transparent in their stupidity.
QUOTE(GoddessWhispers @ May 31 2005, 06:00 PM)
QUOTE(101 @ May 31 2005, 03:16 PM)
What Goddess? Where did you hear this I don't understand at all. This is news to me.
[right][snapback]649350[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]649350[/snapback][/right]
I've talked to a number of ministers, after my encounter with the first one,
[right][snapback]649536[/snapback][/right]
having had an NDE I would appreciate it if you would share your encounter. I know that it might be personal, so I will understand if you don't.
if one is to be jusdge, it is not by how they treat their freinds and family, but how they treat those most opposite to their views.
if you view killing someone as justification for removing a threat from society.... you are only invisioning for yourself a false justification.
how nice that people can sit around and conviently decide the life or death of another. if you make a mistake in your judgement, should you too then as well die for having sent an innocent man to death is a worse crime than what a serial killer does.
DO NOT CONFUSE safety with punishment. "defense is frightening. it stems from fear, increasing the fear as each defense is made. you think it offers safety. yet it speaks of fear made real and terror justified."
indeed, to live in fear. to justify killing another. yet do we see these supposedly moral citizens stepping forward to do the killing themselves? no. they do not want blood on their hands, but somehow falsely feel protected by a society that will kill when it deems fit. how will you feel when that same society falsely decides it is time for you to die?
a respect for life needs to be apparent at all levels. it needs to be shown for the serial killers. and others you deem "animals". do not forget that they are more alike you than different. perhaps that is the most distressing aspect of all and why so many rush to label such people as "monsters" for example, to try and claim they are so different. what you see in them is what you fear in yourself.
it really takes a brave and noble person to claim they have the right to tell someone else to kill someone for doing something they disagree with.
if you view killing someone as justification for removing a threat from society.... you are only invisioning for yourself a false justification.
how nice that people can sit around and conviently decide the life or death of another. if you make a mistake in your judgement, should you too then as well die for having sent an innocent man to death is a worse crime than what a serial killer does.
DO NOT CONFUSE safety with punishment. "defense is frightening. it stems from fear, increasing the fear as each defense is made. you think it offers safety. yet it speaks of fear made real and terror justified."
indeed, to live in fear. to justify killing another. yet do we see these supposedly moral citizens stepping forward to do the killing themselves? no. they do not want blood on their hands, but somehow falsely feel protected by a society that will kill when it deems fit. how will you feel when that same society falsely decides it is time for you to die?
a respect for life needs to be apparent at all levels. it needs to be shown for the serial killers. and others you deem "animals". do not forget that they are more alike you than different. perhaps that is the most distressing aspect of all and why so many rush to label such people as "monsters" for example, to try and claim they are so different. what you see in them is what you fear in yourself.
it really takes a brave and noble person to claim they have the right to tell someone else to kill someone for doing something they disagree with.
No
Thanks Goddess, But I think it might just be they believe the only way to Heaven is through Christs Blood. This is how we are saved. Why then did we have the laws of the old testimont and stuff. This makes no sense. I think God just wanted us to learn how to appreciatte Jesus sacrifice before it was given.
if one is to be jusdge, it is not by how they treat their freinds and family, but how they treat those most opposite to their views.
Is is not treatment of others,it is action that matters.
if you view killing someone as justification for removing a threat from society.... you are only invisioning for yourself a false justification.
It is not justification.It is murder.
how nice that people can sit around and conviently decide the life or death of another. if you make a mistake in your judgement, should you too then as well die for having sent an innocent man to death is a worse crime than what a serial killer does.
It is not judging.It is acting.
DO NOT CONFUSE safety with punishment. "defense is frightening. it stems from fear, increasing the fear as each defense is made. you think it offers safety. yet it speaks of fear made real and terror justified."
It is not defense.It is offense.
indeed, to live in fear. to justify killing another. yet do we see these supposedly moral citizens stepping forward to do the killing themselves? no. they do not want blood on their hands, but somehow falsely feel protected by a society that will kill when it deems fit. how will you feel when that same society falsely decides it is time for you to die?
I won t.
a respect for life needs to be apparent at all levels. it needs to be shown for the serial killers. and others you deem "animals". do not forget that they are more alike you than different. perhaps that is the most distressing aspect of all and why so many rush to label such people as "monsters" for example, to try and claim they are so different. what you see in them is what you fear in yourself.
To live in fear....
it really takes a brave and noble person to claim they have the right to tell someone else to kill someone for doing something they disagree with.
Not brave.Powerful.
How does the death penalty differ from any other punishment enforced by society?
Is is not treatment of others,it is action that matters.
if you view killing someone as justification for removing a threat from society.... you are only invisioning for yourself a false justification.
It is not justification.It is murder.
how nice that people can sit around and conviently decide the life or death of another. if you make a mistake in your judgement, should you too then as well die for having sent an innocent man to death is a worse crime than what a serial killer does.
It is not judging.It is acting.
DO NOT CONFUSE safety with punishment. "defense is frightening. it stems from fear, increasing the fear as each defense is made. you think it offers safety. yet it speaks of fear made real and terror justified."
It is not defense.It is offense.
indeed, to live in fear. to justify killing another. yet do we see these supposedly moral citizens stepping forward to do the killing themselves? no. they do not want blood on their hands, but somehow falsely feel protected by a society that will kill when it deems fit. how will you feel when that same society falsely decides it is time for you to die?
I won t.
a respect for life needs to be apparent at all levels. it needs to be shown for the serial killers. and others you deem "animals". do not forget that they are more alike you than different. perhaps that is the most distressing aspect of all and why so many rush to label such people as "monsters" for example, to try and claim they are so different. what you see in them is what you fear in yourself.
To live in fear....
it really takes a brave and noble person to claim they have the right to tell someone else to kill someone for doing something they disagree with.
Not brave.Powerful.
How does the death penalty differ from any other punishment enforced by society?
QUOTE
How does the death penalty differ from any other punishment enforced by society?
man can not restore another's life should the evidence show an error was made.
since man makes errors, he should not hand down actions that are not capable of being reversed should such an error occur.
man can not restore another's life should the evidence show an error was made
And how do you restore a life in prison?
And how do you restore a life in prison?
QUOTE(Snake_6024 @ Jun 1 2005, 09:02 AM)
man can not restore another's life should the evidence show an error was made
And how do you restore a life in prison?
[right][snapback]650982[/snapback][/right]
And how do you restore a life in prison?
[right][snapback]650982[/snapback][/right]
you can release and compensate for the error. perhaps the wrongfully imprisoned would appreciate the years left to him/her upon release?
One question if we wrongfully accuse someone. Then they are in prison shouldn't they constantly be finding a way out. I mean good behavior whatever.
Joseph went to jail because Potaphers wife wished to sleep with him but he would not. Was Joseph angry no not really just confused as to why God would do this to him because he was so faithful and good. So why do you think a person is wrogfully judged anyways?
Joseph went to jail because Potaphers wife wished to sleep with him but he would not. Was Joseph angry no not really just confused as to why God would do this to him because he was so faithful and good. So why do you think a person is wrogfully judged anyways?
because men make mistakes...
because men can be corrupt...
because men can be corrupt...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.