This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The death penalty would be terrible. Why, this way he can spend his time watching TV, eating 3 square meals a day, working out in the gym, and being rehabilitated by the prison social workers. That way, when he's released because the prison is too crowded, there'll only be a 20% chance he'll do it again.
Did you see the part about him confessing?
The death penalty is on the payroll?No wonder government expenditures are out of control.
let saints- man pay for a couple of them
I am ready to say.. If you are caught in the act;Confess with evidence;or DNA and Witnesses/or other evidence convicts you, there will be no more years of Appeals. If the evidence is over whelming that you are guilty you will have 1 hour to say
It is the cost of the death penalty that causes me concern, not the Death penalty for those that are clearly proven to be guilty of the crime.
While I will agree with this in a lot of cases. This is one of those where the "cruel and unusual" part comes into play.
I had some of my Christian friends express the same opinion and I was very confused by it.God commanded his people to carry out death sentences multiple times in the Bible.
You asked to be convinced otherwise, then you should consider the fact that sometimes people confess to things they did not do.
In the Old Testament, yes. Not in the New Testament, which is the outline of Christian theology. The "eye for an eye" philosophy is an Old Testament paradigm which is changed to love and mercy in the promise of the New Testament. I find it incongruent for Christians to site Old Testament principles that are superceded by New Testament principles. I didn't suggest that anyone committing any crime(whether murder or something else) should not receive punishment. But death is the ultimate punishment. The promise of the New Testament is that everyone is available for salvation, from the world's most righteous to the world's most evil. By killing them, you may be prevent their chance of doing so.
Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. If this can be done bloodlessly, then governments should so limit themselves. This would better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good (i.e. it is "bad" to kill people) and maintains the dignity of the human person. Basically it reserves final judgement for God - not us and therefore allows for repentance (see Luke 23:40-43 - the repentant criminal). From a religious standpoint this "erring (although I don't like the implication of that term) on the side of mercy" fits better within the bounds of Christian teaching on forgiveness and mercy, than does execution. As an aside, most Biblical support for the death penalty comes from the OT - and Jesus in Matthew 5:43 and following teaches love of enemies in juxtaposition to OT Leviticus.
I've felt this way as well. Sometimes I wonder if belief in an afterlife correlates with wanting the death penalty. If you believe in a hell after death, you'd be more likely to want to execute someone. I want them punished in this life.
Doubtful. They had capital punishment when the Constitution was written, so I don't think they'd have considered that cruel or unusual.
I think sitting in a cage 23 out of 24 hours a day for the rest of my life is some pretty good punishment. Moreso than a guy sticking a needle in me to put me to sleep.
I'd argue that the people shouldn't use the state as a tool of vengeance.
I'm vehemently against it personally. I can't imagine killing a human for any reason, even if it would save our government millions of dollars.
Not me. I disagree with it as a punishment because it cannot be undone, because I doubt its efficacy as a deterrent, and I do not think it is right to act to end life in any context.
Same here.
In as non-confrontational way as possible, I'd like to point out that the Christians in this thread have both used the bible to support their opposing viewpoints on the death penalty.
My argument remains the same. Suicide is an easy way out.
I understand that. Christians disagree on all sorts of things, and that doesn't bother me. The way I see it, one of the most important lessons of the NT is the importance of accepting God's grace and salvation, an offer which is open to anybody, even criminals. When we execute someone, we take away his opportunity to repent and turn toward God. I don't think it's our place to do that.
Vengeance? Since when is punishment for a crime vengeance? Is paying a fine vengeance? Is serving time in jail vengeance?
In the book An Innocent Man, a paranoid schizphrenic is wrongly convicted of murder (he confessed). He was tormented by other inmates, and would have killed himself if given the chance. Instead, he was (eventually) released and given the treatment he needed.I think your solution is a poor one.
I think those that are willing to kill innocent people will kill regardless of the penalty. I think you could change the law that if you kill an innocent person, you will be locked in a room with 1 million hungry rats for a week covered in BBQ sauce and they'd still commit the crime.
I don't think the death penalty is much of a deterrent, It doesn't seem to be anyway.
That's always the crux with it. It also seems like this is the aspect people who support the death penalty will apply if you disagree. "what if your wife...." the human need for vengeance pure and simple is a powerful one, and I get that, I do not however feel that should lead to state sanctioned murder. Also, this story is tragic, but from the 20 seconds it took to read it I think I can make a pretty accurate diagnosis that this man is clearly mentally ill. While the death of those kids is horrific and the thought, as a parent, of them being flung to their deaths will ruin the rest of my afternoon, I don't see how putting him to death makes us a better people or society.
The evidence should be Over whelming that the person is guilty before we even consider the death penalty.
I don't think it's that simple Joe. There was a thread awhile back where SwtJ tried to lay out the reasons for punishing crime. Deterrence is one, but so is retribution, just desserts, and separation of a dangerous person from society. I'll see if I can find it.
