Death sentence

[KoreBolteR]

If there was no chance of ever being free again, perhaps I'd opt for lethal injection.

I think while most people, at least in the UK, like to say they're religious, I doubt many of them genuinely believe in an afterlife, or at least would be willing to die to find out. Most would rather spend a good spell in prison.

yeah same id have lethal injection rather than sit in a cell for the rest of my life.

im not religious, but i do believe in the afterlife. when you die, rejoin with your family. it doesnt just go black, it cant be

i agree with you, when you say "good spell in prison".
because prisons these days are far too leniant, cmon, make it more strict for god sake, because its so good in there (especially with pool table etc), im sure offenders re-commit crimes so that thaey can return. :x

 

[Absinthe]

im not religious, but i do believe in the afterlife. when you die, rejoin with your family. it doesnt just go black, it cant be

At the risk of derailing the topic, can I ask why it can't be that way?

 

[KoreBolteR]

theres too much evidence against it. ive seen a lot of shows where people have burst into tears, and it doesnt look like they are acting. ive been to a show myself, where i saw these couple contacting thier loved ones from the other side, and they couldnt believe it!.

also my friends mother went to a psychic before, and the psychic told her that she had three children when she had 2. but saying that one was passed over and being looked after by her relatives. (that was true because she had an abortion in the 80's).

anyway, i see far too much stuff, to think that it just goes ...black...

 

[Raziaar]

theres too much evidence against it. ive seen a lot of shows where people have burst into tears, and it doesnt look like they are acting. ive been to a show myself, where i saw these couple contacting thier loved ones from the other side, and they couldnt believe it!.

also my friends mother went to a psychic before, and the psychic told her that she had three children when she had 2. but saying that one was passed over and being looked after by her relatives. (that was true because she had an abortion in the 80's).

anyway, i see far too much stuff, to think that it just goes ...black...

I personally believe those shows that 'contact the dead', like "Crossing over with John Edwards" are a complete farce, but I certainly believe in the afterlife.

 

[PvtRyan]

"Hey, he killed someone, that's wrong! Lets kill him!"

 

[KoreBolteR]

"Hey, he killed someone, that's wrong! Lets kill him!"

depends if he killed that person on purpose

 

[Edcrab]

"Hey! He killed someone, that's wrong! Let's lock him up for fifteen years, then let him out!"

"Hey, he killed someone else! That's even more wrong! Let's try that prison thing again!"

"Nope, still no luck, he and his little bastardly friends keep killing people. Oh, for a world in which we could legally sell unrepentant convicts to Ed and his Human>Fuel program..."*

*May or may not represent the forumgoers opinion.

 

[Raziaar]

"Hey, he killed someone, that's wrong! Lets kill him!"

Its more like, "lets kill him to remove his risk to others, or in the case of being in prison, he is still a big threat against lesser offenders as well.

I personally don't view someone who killed somebody in cold blood, to be the same as the state executing someone who, by giving up the rights of another to live, gave up their own as well.

 

[KoreBolteR]

Its more like, "lets kill him to remove his risk to others, or in the case of being in prison, he is still a big threat against lesser offenders as well.

I personally don't view someone who killed somebody in cold blood, to be the same as the state executing someone who, by giving up the rights of another to live, gave up their own as well.

i agree.

 

[VirusType2]

You kill animals all the time, and thats just for lunch

There may be people who deserve it, but I would never bring myself down to their level.

This is not directed at Bliink, Im just trying to argue my point.
=)
You would rather give these people free prepared hot meals, shelter, cable t.v. a bed and hot showers(depending which pen) FOR LIFE? You pay for it in your taxes!

HELL we need a good reason for them to not commit the crime.

In most cases JAIL LIFE IS BETTER THEN THEY HAVE EVER HAD IT.

People that have killed lots of innocent people are usually the only ones that get death, so I say, KIll them... Killing them is one way to convince people not to commit the crime in the first place, by example.

Ive seen cases like this on t.v. the criminal is begging to be put
out of thier missery in some cases, pleading for a quick trip to the death chamber. Im not joking. (in this case maybe we should punish them further by not granting thier wish. muahhahahaa)

what if He/she killed your entire family for no good reason, you might think differently.

Ok, ok, If death is too wrong, what would you preffer? let everyone in america punch them in the stomach and/or kick them in the nuts, or what have you.

I AGREE IN RARE INSTANCES WITH CAPITOL PUNISHMENT
IM ALSO AN ORGAN DONOR

You kill intelligent, innocent animals all the time, and thats just for lunch

you can wash dirt but it will still be dirty

 

[burner69]

Yeah, lunch... the whole food specktrum is quite important for us. We're omniverous and eat animals. Unfortuantley to eat an animal it has to die.

Hold on...

JAIL LIFE IS BETTER THEN THEY HAVE EVER HAD IT.

Ive seen cases like this on t.v. the criminal is begging to be put out of thier missery in some cases, pleading for a quick trip to the death chamber. Im not joking.

They must have had it bad, no wonder they had little regard for human life.

With regard "teaching crims a lesson" please refer to my first post.

 

[MarcoPollo]

Actually a lot of serial killers/rapists/watever , cept the ones in mental institutions, are happy to recieve the death penalty because if released they will probly be killed by a vigilanty/ person they f***ed with and if not released they have it really bad in jail(specialy the small ones :naughty: ) rofl
so if you really want to punish them let them rot the rest of thier life in a crappy prison system and get some horrible illness that causes thier arms to fall off rofl

 

[Hercules331]

Lets see, let them go so they can commit more crimes? Or keep them rotting in jail not having to work, spend any money, or do anything at all really, wasting tax payers money. I say get rid of em.

 

[Raziaar]

The major costs that comes with execution comes from the whole court trials. That needs to be streamlined so it doesn't cost the state nearly as much.

 

[Top Secret]

I agree with the death penalty only in one sense:

If they can speed it the **** up and make it cheaper. Why is it that it's more expensive to execute someone than to hold them in cell for 60 years damnit? Gun 400 dollars, bullet 50 cents, it's cheap damnit.

 

[VirusType2]

I agree with the death penalty only in one sense:

If they can speed it the **** up and make it cheaper. Why is it that it's more expensive to execute someone than to hold them in cell for 60 years damnit? Gun 400 dollars, bullet 50 cents, it's cheap damnit.

Yea, that makes sense.

That reminds me of something that Chris Rock said:

"make bullets $50,000."

"There would be no more innocent bystanders getting accidentally shot."

 

[GhostFox]

The major costs that comes with execution comes from the whole court trials. That needs to be streamlined so it doesn't cost the state nearly as much.

I'm assuming you mean the decade long appeal process. And while I agree that streamlining them would save money, if your life is at stake I think every avenue of appeal needs to be explored.

I think some states do have a steamlined process on "complete certainty" cases though. Like when a news crew happens to catch you killing 6 people or something like that.

 

[Solaris]

Now im not a christian but alot of people are, to them I ask what happened to,

"Tho Shalt not kill"

 

[GhostFox]

Now im not a christian but alot of people are, to them I ask what happened to,

"Tho Shalt not kill"

Apparently you have never read the bible, and you not being Christian I am not surprised. Most people incorrect think that the whole "eye for an eye" line means that you shouldn't do it to someone else just becuase they did it to you. However it is actually a call for mercy. If someone takes out your eye, only take out theirs. If they kill your daughter, you kill them.

Basically it is calling for murder to recieve the death penalty, but no other crime.

My other favorite misinterprated bible in is "spare the rod and spoil the child" I love it when people think it means you should spoil your kid instead of beating him. It actually means that if you don't beat your child with a big stick, you are spoiling him and you need to beat him more often.

I love the bible

 

[Pesmerga]

There are far worse punishments than death. Capital punishment is a relief for some who don't want to spend the next 100 years rotting in a prison cell with no chance of parole.

 

[Danimal]

It depends on the crime for me...

 

[Solaris]

Again you are as many christians do, ignoring the facts.

The 10 commandments are 10 rules given by god (apparently)
It says
Tho shalt not kill

Thats it it doesnt say

Tho shalt kill the guilty

or

Thou shalt not kill expect....

 

[Raziaar]

Again you are as many christians do, ignoring the facts.

The 10 commandments are 10 rules given by god (apparently)
It says
Tho shalt not kill

Thats it it doesnt say

Tho shalt kill the guilty

or

Thou shalt not kill expect....

You ignore the facts. The commandment of thou shall not kill is different than the death penalty.

There's also other things in the old testament that can be used in modern conversation about the death penalty.

THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE DEATH PENALTY

As an introduction it should be mentioned that the Old Testament was the only Holy Scripture for Jesus, the apostles and the first Christians. It was the Old Testament they read, studied, sang from and believed in. The Christian Church has never abandoned the Old Testament. Much of the Old Testament isn’t relevant for the Christian Church today (Col 2:16-17, Hebr 9-10), but the church has always taught that everywhere in the Old Testament there are divine principles with an eternal relevant character. We will always be able to find God’s being, his thoughts and plans also in the Old Testament. Christ himself has eternally sanctioned the Old Testament by saying that he is written about everywhere in the Old Testament, Luke 24:44-45.

"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth…" (Exodus 21:23-25)

This is one of many Biblical expressions and quotes that are still living today. Since the words are often misused today it is important to know what the words meant in their original context in the Bible.

This is not a quote from a personal vendetta. It is not for individuals to do the works of revenge. The quote is found in a legal situation where a judge is at work. (Ex 21).

Sometimes the expression was interpreted literally, Lev 24:20f, but sometimes fines were imposed when somebody had caused bodily injuries, Ex 21:18-19, 27.

The "eye for an eye" principle can be seen as a legal application of "the golden rule" (Matt 7:12): "Do to others what you would have them do to you". Both principles assume that we humans are equal and should treat each other in an equal and fair manner. If we harm another fellow human we at the same time admit that – according to the spirit of these principles – that others (i.e. the state governed by law) can do the same to us.

"An eye for an eye" also means a protection for the guilty party, who should not have to worry about suffering more than the suffering he himself has caused. "An eye for an eye" thereby limits the extent of the retribution. The principle means that the punishing consequence should be equal to what the victim has suffered. It is about that a fair compensation, sanction, should be imposed. In other words, in the days of the Bible one said "an eye for an eye" just as we today say the same thing about justice or retribution. And retribution is a principle that runs through the Bible as a red thread. We find it in the Old Testament, for instance in the expression "an eye for an eye", in the New Testament (Rom 13:4, Acts 25:11), and in heaven (Rev. 6:10, 19:2).

"For the Lord is a God of retribution; he will repay in full." Jer 51:56

The principle found in the words "an eye for an eye" has always been more or less found in every legal system of every country in the world. The Biblical principle of "eye for eye" lays the foundation for the death penalty. The fundamental rule is that a life has to be paid for with a life. The Biblical expression "life for life" (Ex 21:23) often meant a death penalty, but not always (Numb 35:22-25).

Now I don't care if you believe it... but the 'Thou Shall Not Kill' isnt the only thing to take into consideration about the bible and the death penalty. So please, YOU get the facts about it before you claim others not to have them.

 

[Tr0n]

Again you are as many christians do, ignoring the facts.

The 10 commandments are 10 rules given by god (apparently)
It says
Tho shalt not kill

Thats it it doesnt say

Tho shalt kill the guilty

or

Thou shalt not kill expect....

No....it's "Thou shalt not murder."

For christ sakes....In hebrew it was "Thou shalt not murder", but the 10 commandments got re-translated so many times over hundreds of years it came out "Thou shalt not kill"....so the orignal true one was "Thou shalt not murder".

 

[RZAL]

Again you are as many christians do, ignoring the facts.

The 10 commandments are 10 rules given by god (apparently)
It says
Tho shalt not kill

Thats it it doesnt say

Tho shalt kill the guilty

or

Thou shalt not kill expect....

Guys read your history, Moses was advised to follow the “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” doctrine stated in Exodus 21:24, but this concept of lex talionis is far older than the bible; it appears in the Sumerian codes (1860 b.c.) and in the 1750 b.c. code of King Hammurabi of Babylon, compiled over five hundred years before the Book of the Covenant (1250 b.c.) .

 

[Solaris]

It appears the bible contradicts itself.

How unusual


not

 

[kirovman]

Bibical contradictions?

That reminds me... http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

There's a few more websites, but it's a good read.

Also I seem to remember Jesus reinforming everyone not to follow the eye for an eye statement, he said love your enemy or something.

And also, not in christian teaching, but I find it particularly relevant, and very wise, by Ghandi:

"An eye for an eye and everyone will be blind"

Actually someone mentioned it before, on this thread, I think.

I have the belief that in the future that science will be able to 'cure' people from criminal minds, and while now we imprison them, in the future, murder will become less as serial killer minds will be treated, and the only murders will be in the case of heated disputes.

I think killing a murderer brings you down to their level.

With respect to an eye for an eye: How about if they sexually assault someone, does that mean they need the same punishment in return? Are you going to administer this punishment?

 

[Solaris]

My name: daniel

Is hebrew for: God is my Judge

I think this is relevant, no man has the right to kill another. Besides the death sentance is being abused in america.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

No....it's "Thou shalt not murder."

For christ sakes....In hebrew it was "Thou shalt not murder", but the 10 commandments got re-translated so many times over hundreds of years it came out "Thou shalt not kill"....so the orignal true one was "Thou shalt not murder".

Beat me to it.

My name: daniel

Is hebrew for: God is my Judge

I think this is relevant, no man has the right to kill another. Besides the death sentance is being abused in america.

What did that have to do with anything?

Yes, there is a right to kill another for justice, self defense/protection, or war (which is the same as previous, but on a national scale)

How is the death sentence being abused? It's one thing to think it's not okay for someone to be killed, but it in no way is being abused.

 

[Raziaar]

It appears the bible contradicts itself.

How unusual


not

Religion is bashed quite often enough on these forums... thankfully, you don't have the talent to add any more weight to it.

 

[RZAL]

Bibical contradictions?

That reminds me... http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

There's a few more websites, but it's a good read.

Also I seem to remember Jesus reinforming everyone not to follow the eye for an eye statement, he said love your enemy or something.

It’s not contradiction if you understand the meaning.

And also, not in christian teaching, but I find it particularly relevant, and very wise, by Ghandi:

"An eye for an eye and everyone will be blind"

Actually someone mentioned it before, on this thread, I think.

Not meaning to take away from the greatness of Ghandi or his achievements, it’s worth mentioning that civil disobedience will not prevail in all circumstances that may arise in the course of human history. It’s also important to point out that both Ghandi and Martin Luther King was inspired by Henry David Thoreau’s (1817-1862) essay “Civil Disobedience”.

I have the belief that in the future that science will be able to 'cure' people from criminal minds, and while now we imprison them, in the future, murder will become less as serial killer minds will be treated, and the only murders will be in the case of heated disputes.

So you believe science will find a cure for free will? To deny one’s free will, is to deny the very essence of humanity.

With respect to an eye for an eye: How about if they sexually assault someone, does that mean they need the same punishment in return? Are you going to administer this punishment?

As I pointed out several post back the ideal of lex talionis pre-dates the bible. With out going into an hour lecture on philosophy, lex talionis is based on the premise that every thing in the universe has a place and purpose and only when everything is in its place is its purpose served.

When a crime is commented (an unjust act) the act is an object moved out of place. The end result is something is not in its place and therefore everything in the universe will not serve its purpose. lex talionis is the vehicle used to right a wrong (justice), it puts the object back in place so the universe can continue to function as intended…at least that the theory

 

[burner69]

Aren't we meant to live in a multicultural secular society?

Surely laws can be based around more than a book written by various people with agendas more so many thousand years ago.

 

[Raziaar]

Aren't we meant to live in a multicultural secular society?

Surely laws can be based around more than a book written by various people with agendas more so many thousand years ago.

I wasn't saying that the bible invented the death penalty. THat's hardly the case. Eye for an Eye was around quite a long time before then. I'm defending the fact that it doesn't damn the death penalty in certain situations.

The whole 'eye for an eye' thing doesn't have religious origins as far as I know.

I have the belief that in the future that science will be able to 'cure' people from criminal minds, and while now we imprison them, in the future, murder will become less as serial killer minds will be treated, and the only murders will be in the case of heated disputes.

Dude, that is so wrong. You want to bend the will of the mind to something they are not? Sure, it might have some uses in criminal instances, but you can be damn certain it would be used for great evil to bend the masses to even more evil or controlling purposes. As it stands right now, we choose what to believe in or do, but what you predict, is that governments will be able to mind control people and thats just scary to think about.

You're so opposed to the death penalty, you'd accept mind control to change it? Thats slavery of a whole different nature.

 

[RZAL]

Aren't we meant to live in a multicultural secular society?

Surely laws can be based around more than a book written by various people with agendas more so many thousand years ago.

So your saying we should write laws on the whims of the people?

 

[burner69]

So your saying we should write laws on the whims of the people?

Human experience changes. We should write the laws based on what we need, and what we think is right.

 

[RZAL]

Human experience changes. We should write the laws based on what we need, and what we think is right.

So your saying we should define "whats right" on the whims of the people?

 

[kirovman]

I wasn't saying that the bible invented the death penalty. THat's hardly the case. Eye for an Eye was around quite a long time before then. I'm defending the fact that it doesn't damn the death penalty in certain situations.

The whole 'eye for an eye' thing doesn't have religious origins as far as I know.




Dude, that is so wrong. You want to bend the will of the mind to something they are not? Sure, it might have some uses in criminal instances, but you can be damn certain it would be used for great evil to bend the masses to even more evil or controlling purposes. As it stands right now, we choose what to believe in or do, but what you predict, is that governments will be able to mind control people and thats just scary to think about.

You're so opposed to the death penalty, you'd accept mind control to change it? Thats slavery of a whole different nature.

Did I say bend their will? If so sorry, I meant remove the urge for them to commit crime. They still have the ability to commit the crime, but they wouldn't feel inclined to do so.
So overall you'd get less crime.
Just like you have anti-depressants to stop people being depressed, you could have anti-criminality pills to stop people feeling like killing or thieving perhaps.

And crime has been linked to mental health problems in a lot of cases.

Anyway it's nothing more than handwavy speculation of the future on my part, I'm not suggesting the world should have a Yuri off Red Alert 2 or anything. I'm just saying maybe the criminal mind could be treated as a mental illness in certain instances.

 

[Razor]

My opinion is that the death sentence should only be reserved for very serious serial killers where the evidence against them is 100% concrete.

 

[kirovman]

Why the death sentance? We can send all our most hardened criminals to Australia.

Or the moon maybe.

 

[RZAL]

Did I say bend their will? If so sorry, I meant remove the urge for them to commit crime. They still have the ability to commit the crime, but they wouldn't feel inclined to do so.
So overall you'd get less crime.
Just like you have anti-depressants to stop people being depressed, you could have anti-criminality pills to stop people feeling like killing or thieving perhaps.

And crime has been linked to mental health problems in a lot of cases.

Anyway it's nothing more than handwavy speculation of the future on my part, I'm not suggesting the world should have a Yuri off Red Alert 2 or anything. I'm just saying maybe the criminal mind could be treated as a mental illness in certain instances.

Ok, I’ll go with that.