28 replies to this topic

[ShakeZuma]

I was wondering what everybody's take on the death penalty is.

I'd like to hear discussion from both the Christians and others on what the morals of this issue are.


I'd like to keep the discussion to a moral and theological level, not political please.

[Turbo Dog]

I was wondering what everybody's take on the death penalty is.

I'd like to hear discussion from both the Christians and others on what the morals of this issue are.
I'd like to keep the discussion to a moral and theological level, not political please.

I am for capital punishment, as long as it's not too severe.

[keith crime]

without capital punishment there would be no christianity

[Mattnxtc]

without capital punishment there would be no christianity

expand this out? i want to hear your reasoning

[keith crime]

Well, we wouldn't have Easter

[Mattnxtc]

Well, we wouldn't have Easter

o ok..ithought u were going somewhere else with this

[Loismustdie]

Well, in order to execute somebody then somebody has got to kill, or be the mechanism. That would be a sin. God says, and I can't think of the scripture right now, but it's quite simple- "Vengeance is mine."

[ShakeZuma]

so you're saying, I think, that God is the only one who can decide on wheter a person lives or dies, then? and therefore, man can't make that decision, as in capital punishment?

[sixhands]

Well, in order to execute somebody then somebody has got to kill, or be the mechanism. That would be a sin. God says, and I can't think of the scripture right now, but it's quite simple- "Vengeance is mine."

why should God have all the fun

I am for and against capital punishment.

Reason for: some people don't change, if you continue to kill or rape people then the world will be better off without you. Plus taxpayers wouldn't have to pay to support you.

Reason against: an innocent person could be convicted.

I think this goes a little further than that. The justice system in most countries still places a lot of emphasis on an individual's rights and freedoms.

I'm sorry but if you break the law you are showing that you yourself do not value other people's rights and freedoms. Therefore you should not have any (rights) if you have been convicted of a crime.

I was brought up in a world where you were punished if you broke the law. I did not want to go to jail for shoplifting etc.

Nowadays I see repeat offenders for car theft and burglary, all they get is a slap on the wrist, probation or some other pitiful excuse for punishment.

I personally feel that capital punishment should be an automatic punishment for repeat murderers, rapists and child molesters.

And it should be a public hanging in the town square.

Just my thoughts on this topic.

P.S. Congrats on your final table seat Frank

[Loismustdie]

why should God have all the fun

I am for and against capital punishment.

Reason for: some people don't change, if you continue to kill or rape people then the world will be better off without you. Plus taxpayers wouldn't have to pay to support you.

Reason against: an innocent person could be convicted.

I think this goes a little further than that. The justice system in most countries still places a lot of emphasis on an individual's rights and freedoms.

I'm sorry but if you break the law you are showing that you yourself do not value other people's rights and freedoms. Therefore you should not have any (rights) if you have been convicted of a crime.

I was brought up in a world where you were punished if you broke the law. I did not want to go to jail for shoplifting etc.

Nowadays I see repeat offenders for car theft and burglary, all they get is a slap on the wrist, probation or some other pitiful excuse for punishment.

I personally feel that capital punishment should be an automatic punishment for repeat murderers, rapists and child molesters.

And it should be a public hanging in the town square.

Just my thoughts on this topic.

P.S. Congrats on your final table seat Frank

Thank you, and lets extrapilate this very simply- show me an executioner who enjoys his job and I will show you a murderer. Whats the difference?

[sixhands]

I'd like to keep the discussion to a moral and theological level, not political please.

Missed this bit when reading the OP, sorry about my brief political spout in my previous post Shake.

Six

[sixhands]

Thank you, and lets extrapilate this very simply- show me an executioner who enjoys his job and I will show you a murderer. Whats the difference?

By whose reasoning is he a murderer?

I see your point and in some ways I agree. Here's why I disagree.

He is performing this action within the constraints of the law, a murderer shows little to no regard for the law.

Here is my solution to capital punishment, however this may be viewed as somewhat babaric.

Send these individuals to a remote part of the world with nothing but the clothes on their backs and let nature finish them off.

If they survive, I am hoping they will have a new look on life. If they do not survive then I guess God has delivered his vengeance.

[timwakefield]

I am not religious and am against capital punishment. There are two reasons.

First, there is the possibility that a completely innocent man, simply due to bad luck, will be executed. This possibility is so grave that I don't see how we can employ a justice system which allows it. If a mistake is made, it is 100% impossible to rectify. And that's not even going into the factor that race and economic status play in deciding a person's punishment.

Second is that nobody has the right to kill a specific person. War is different. But it truly is hypocrital for a state to say, "You killed a man. Killing is wrong. As punishment you will be killed."

[Loismustdie]

I am not religious and am against capital punishment. There are two reasons.

First, there is the possibility that a completely innocent man, simply due to bad luck, will be executed. This possibility is so grave that I don't see how we can employ a justice system which allows it. If a mistake is made, it is 100% impossible to rectify. And that's not even going into the factor that race and economic status play in deciding a person's punishment.

Second is that nobody has the right to kill a specific person. War is different. But it truly is hypocrital for a state to say, "You killed a man. Killing is wrong. As punishment you will be killed."

Well said.

[sixhands]

I am not religious and am against capital punishment. There are two reasons.

First, there is the possibility that a completely innocent man, simply due to bad luck, will be executed. This possibility is so grave that I don't see how we can employ a justice system which allows it. If a mistake is made, it is 100% impossible to rectify. And that's not even going into the factor that race and economic status play in deciding a person's punishment.

Second is that nobody has the right to kill a specific person. War is different. But it truly is hypocrital for a state to say, "You killed a man. Killing is wrong. As punishment you will be killed."

Please explain how war is different. Killing is still killing, you are just doing it for some pea-brained leader who feels they are right in sending innocent men to their deaths for the sake of greater good.

No war has had the desired outcome from which is was started.

So how is war different?

Please exlain sir

Second is that nobody has the right to kill a specific person. War is different. But it truly is hypocrital for a state to say, "You killed a man. Killing is wrong. As punishment you will be killed."


Isn't this what several leaders have said before attacking other leaders for crimes committed against humanity?

[DonkSlayer]

As a Christian, I'm pretty sure I can't support other Christians that support the death penalty wholeheartedly, simply as a means of punishment. How can you say the bible is against homosexuality (for instance), but not capital punishment?
I believe it is only appropriate when a) the person is too dangerous to be left alive, or his death somehow will save other lives.

Thus, I think killing someone like Osama would be a bad idea; letting all his islamist buddies see him rot in jail with no help from Allah would be better.

If we believe we must kill to deter others from killing, then the killing must be a deterrent...firing squad, death by fire ants, etc....euthansia is not a deterrent.


Does justice ask that murderers be killed? Yes. But my religion dictates I am not to do it when it's not a necessary act of defense. I actually subscribe to the "drop them off on an island somewhere" argument though...let God do what he must.

Please explain how war is different. Killing is still killing, you are just doing it for some pea-brained leader who feels they are right in sending innocent men to their deaths for the sake of greater good.

No war has had the desired outcome from which is was started.

So how is war different?

Please exlain sir

Second is that nobody has the right to kill a specific person. War is different. But it truly is hypocrital for a state to say, "You killed a man. Killing is wrong. As punishment you will be killed."
Isn't this what several leaders have said before attacking other leaders for crimes committed against humanity?

Six, offensive-minded war is wrong. If we have some emperor trying to expand his kingdom, that is wrong.

Most wars start defensively though. Someone says, "that's mine." Another says, "No, that's mine." The first says "That's mine, I'm taking it." The second replies "No, and I'll stop you if you do, b/c that threatens me." And so forth.

[sixhands]

As a Christian, I'm pretty sure I can't support other Christians that support the death penalty wholeheartedly, simply as a means of punishment. How can you say the bible is against homosexuality (for instance), but not capital punishment?
I believe it is only appropriate when a) the person is too dangerous to be left alive, or his death somehow will save other lives.

Thus, I think killing someone like Osama would be a bad idea; letting all his islamist buddies see him rot in jail with no help from Allah would be better.

If we believe we must kill to deter others from killing, then the killing must be a deterrent...firing squad, death by fire ants, etc....euthansia is not a deterrent.
Does justice ask that murderers be killed? Yes. But my religion dictates I am not to do it when it's not a necessary act of defense. I actually subscribe to the "drop them off on an island somewhere" argument though...let God do what he must.
Six, offensive-minded war is wrong. If we have some emperor trying to expand his kingdom, that is wrong.

Most wars start defensively though. Someone says, "that's mine." Another says, "No, that's mine." The first says "That's mine, I'm taking it." The second replies "No, and I'll stop you if you do, b/c that threatens me." And so forth.

Hey DonkSlayer, I think you may have mistaken my post. I disagree with offensive wars as well. I think that the majority of past wars started defensively but I also think that the majority of recent wars are offensively started.

It's all about perception, who says what's right and what's wrong and then who decides the punishment.

This debate could go on forever without resolve.

[timwakefield]

Please explain how war is different. Killing is still killing, you are just doing it for some pea-brained leader who feels they are right in sending innocent men to their deaths for the sake of greater good.

I didn't mean that war is good, or should be encouraged as a way to settle disputes. I just meant that from a moral perspective, you are not going to war in order to kill all of the individual soldiers on the other side. Civilians and soldiers dying is a necessary outcome of war, but not the goal.

Killing is the goal of capital punishment, and it is the specificity of it that makes it wrong. We didn't go to Iraq to kill Saddam. We went (supposedly) to ensure our own safety, and that of our allies.

An executed felon is not being killed "for the greater good." He is being killed as a specific punishment for a crime he committed. Please explain to me how this benefits anybody more than would locking him up and throwing away the key.

[sixhands]

I didn't mean that war is good, or should be encouraged as a way to settle disputes. I just meant that from a moral perspective, you are not going to war in order to kill all of the individual soldiers on the other side. Civilians and soldiers dying is a necessary outcome of war, but not the goal.

Killing is the goal of capital punishment, and it is the specificity of it that makes it wrong. We didn't go to Iraq to kill Saddam. We went (supposedly) to ensure our own safety, and that of our allies.

An executed felon is not being killed "for the greater good." He is being killed as a specific punishment for a crime he committed. Please explain to me how this benefits anybody more than would locking him up and throwing away the key.

Because we all know that there is no such thing as throwing away the key. It seems that after serving the minimum sentence, some of these individuals are let back into society. Only to commit the same crime again. So with regards to your question of who it will benefit, hopefully my wife or son will not be killed by someone who was let out of prison because someone else felt they had served enough time.

As I stated in my first post, I am for and against capital punishment.

I think society would be better off without some of these individuals but I am also worried that an innocent person could be wrongly executed.

As for the war side of things and the moral aspect, please think about the following statement.

Did we attack Iraq for the greater good, out of retaliation or because daddy told me to?

I think that killing someone for a specific crime that THEY committed is far less harsh than killing a bunch of innocent bystanders to ensure our safety.

However, both seem to arrive at the same outcome. The safety of the people.

[timwakefield]

Because we all know that there is no such thing as throwing away the key. It seems that after serving the minimum sentence, some of these individuals are let back into society. Only to commit the same crime again. So with regards to your question of who it will benefit, hopefully my wife or son will not be killed by someone who was let out of prison because someone else felt they had served enough time.

This will happen either way. Capital punishment is only used in a small percentage of cases. Many prisoners are also given sentences of life in prison with no possibility of parole. This means their only way out is escape (which IS to be considered....more prisoners escape than you would expect, but that is a problem of the prison systems that they have escaped from, not the justice system). My point is to take every person who would be executed, and give them life in prison without parole. They won't ever be released...ever.

As for the war side of things and the moral aspect, please think about the following statement.

Did we attack Iraq for the greater good, out of retaliation or because daddy told me to?

I think that killing someone for a specific crime that THEY committed is far less harsh than killing a bunch of innocent bystanders to ensure our safety.

Just to let you know, I have been staunchly opposed to the war in Iraq since its inception. Some people would consider this war itself to be a crime, and I might agree (although I don't think Bush Sr. told his son to go to war). I just mean that the idea of war, as a concept for a state defending itself, is morally dissimilar to a state executing a locked-up prisoner.



edit: just found some escapee statistics. In 1998, 6,530 prisoners escaped from US prisons...or about 0.5% of the entire prison population. It doesn't give numbers for how many returned, but says that it is nearly all. Of course, they were still roaming the streets for however long.......These statistics of course also include what they call 'minimum-security walk-aways.'