To kill or not to kill: capital punishment

Originally posted by vistesd
I was thinking in a somewhat broader context, such as who decides, and how, what crimes can morally be punished by state execution. We have been assuming murder, but—when it was illegal in the Roman empire to be a Christian, capital punishment could be meted out; similarly in some of the heresy-hunts by Christians with state sanction.

Also, capital punishment is not limited to our justice system, or even a system with trial by jury.

I think people or the general populace decide on what type of government and laws. When a nation is oppressed, the people react in due time, either on their own or some other "deliverer." The bible says that happy is a nation who's God is the Lord. A godless nation has every right to do as they please, but there are consequences to their actions physically and spiritually. Thats my opinion, of course.

Originally posted by whodey
I only am given the right to terminate innocent life in the womb not a murderous soul that is a threat to the rest of society.

Whether abortion is right or wrong is beside the point. And there is no threat to society if someone is locked up.

Originally posted by whodey
Must the concepts of punishment and love be at odds? I say no. However, vegence is God's and God's alone. Also, is punishment and vengence of equal nature? I say no. In my mind punishment is merely a deterent to keep them from repeating such acitivity as where vengence is causing them to suffer in similar fashion as they caused another to suffer.

As f is preferable to considering letting them go......at least as far as society is concerned.

The answers to all your questions are addressed in my previous post. If you open your heart to love, you'll understand this. If you don't, you won't. Please don't allow pride to keep you from doing so. To keep you from seeing your rationalizations for what they are.

Originally posted by dottewell
Whether abortion is right or wrong is beside the point. And there is no threat to society if someone is locked up.

The issue of the unborn is beside the point? Oh, thats right, they are not human beings they are parasites. Silly me. So if we are able to equate murderers as parasites on society perhaps we can abort them as well?

I am all for locking up murderers for life. However, as I have said and continue to say, THIS USUALLY DOES NOT HAPPEN. If given a choice I would let them live, however, I would rather them die than let back into society.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
The answers to all your questions are addressed in my previous post. If you open your heart to love, you'll understand this. If you don't, you won't. Please don't allow pride to keep you from doing so. To keep you from seeing your rationalizations for what they are.

So my position is based upon rationaizations and pride? How so?

Originally posted by whodey
The issue of the unborn is beside the point? Oh, thats right, they are not human beings they are parasites. Silly me. So if we are able to equate murderers as parasites on society perhaps we can abort them as well?

I am all for locking up murderers for life. However, as I have said and continue to say, THIS USUALLY DOES NOT HAPPEN. If given a choice I would let them live, however, I would rather them die than let back into society.

It's beside the point in the context of this argument.

"Rather them die than let back into society." Is this purely because you see them as a danger? Do you not believe people can change? Find god, for example?

Originally posted by whodey
So my position is based upon rationaizations and pride? How so?

Your position is unjustifiable if you're concerned about the execution of the innocent or didn't judge all murderers as beyond redemption. You clearly seek vengeance despite the warning of Jesus. All those "arguments" about abortion, protecting society, hastening repentance, etc. only avoid the issue.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I was looking for one, but got personal taste instead.
Kelly

That's just not true. For example, dottewell's provisions were not based on personal taste but on a metaphysics of normative facts about the world.

Originally posted by dottewell
It's beside the point in the context of this argument.

"Rather them die than let back into society." Is this purely because you see them as a danger? Do you not believe people can change? Find god, for example?

Sure people can change but as I said before, we do our best simply to prove that they comitted these crimes so who is going to be the "change police". I say if you do the crime you do the time. For example, if I stole something from you I may be sorry for doing so and you may even forgive me, but I should be held accountable for my actions anyway.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Your position is unjustifiable if you're concerned about the execution of the innocent or didn't judge all murderers as beyond redemption. You clearly seek vengeance despite the warning of Jesus. All those "arguments" about abortion, protecting society, hastening repentance, etc. only avoid the issue.

I am not concerned with the execution of the innocent? I think this is an unfair thing to say. If I recall, you said that you were in favor of locking these guys up for life. So does this mean that you are not concerned with locking up those who might be innocent for life?
I think this is an unrelated issue. We can only give people due process via the laws we live under. Unfortunatly they are imperfect so mistakes will be made no matter your position as to the penalties to be imposed. I don't think that either of us are taking the position that because the process is imperfect that we are better off without it altogether.

In regards to your charge that my position is rooted in vengence I will only say that my arguements about protecting society are at the heart of my arguements. As I said before, I am all for locking these people up for life, however, if this does not happen, as we see it not happening today, I say capital punishment is the better choice than freeing them.

I can't help but thinking of Christ dying on the cross between the two thieves when talking about the issue of capital punishment. Both men dying next to Christ were guilty and paying with their lives as a result and Christ was paying with his own life as he took on the guilt of the human race. All were guilty and deserved death, or at least under Roman/Jewish laws. I see this as a metephore for the human race. We all are guilty of sin and as a result have all been given the death penalty. We all are dying and suffering in the process to various degrees. Where then is the outcry from Christ as to the injustice of our dying or even for his own execution? He is silent regarding the matter other than asking God to forgive them for executing an innocent man who happens to also be the Son of God. You then have two men next to him who have equal grounds for execution and who are suffering the same fate. However, one reaches out to him in the process and asks him to remember him in paradise and the other curses him to his face and says that if he be the Son of God to get them all the !#$#!#$! out of here!!! Again, Christ is silent in regards to the man screaming profanity at him but responds to the man who reaches out in faith for salvation even though he knows that nothing can change his fate and subsequent suffering and inevitable death in this life.

Having said all of that, is dying for sinning a just penalty in your opinion or do you even see our penalty for sinning being death? My guess is that you do not view dying as a penatly for death. Am I right?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Stop spouting things I have not said, and read what I wrote.

As far as what is wrong with life in jail, I don't want to waist one penny
on keeping someone alive who has done some of the nasty things we
put people to death for, spend that money on keeping people in jail
who may learn to improve their lives there. If they have done
something so bad we kill people for their crimes, than put them to
death and move on.
Kelly

It costs more to put someone to death in America than it does to keep them in prison for the rest of their life. Cost is not a valid reason to keep the death penalty.

Originally posted by josephw
Abortion is murder. The blood of the innocent will be on the hands of all who support it.

The point is, you claimed that we shouldn't be against the death penalty because the law says it's ok. By the same logic you shouldn't be against abortion.

Originally posted by whodey
I am not concerned with the execution of the innocent? I think this is an unfair thing to say. If I recall, you said that you were in favor of locking these guys up for life. So does this mean that you are not concerned with locking up those who might be innocent for life?
I think this is an unrelated issue. We can only give people due process via the la ning being death? My guess is that you do not view dying as a penatly for death. Am I right?

This was part of the original post you responded to:
1) Governments have legal systems, not justice systems. People are sometimes convicted of crimes they did not commit. If given a life sentence, they can be freed if new evidence proves their innocence. If executed, well...

This was part of a later post you responded to:
You ignore the issue of the execution of those who are innocent.

Yet you continue to advocate capital punishment. So, yes, you do not appear concerned about the execution of the innocent.


These are excerpts from your posts:
Our jails are far to crowded to conern itself with jailing every murderer for life just as in Biblical times when they had not jails at all.

Do we let murderers roam free at some point or do we lock them up for life or use capital punishment? I am for either, however, I think it highly impracticle to lock every murderer up for life due to the volume of prisoners and limited resources.


So is "protecting society" at the heart of your arguments, or is expediency? Society can be protected without resorting to govermnent sponsored murder.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
This was part of the original post you responded to:
1) Governments have legal systems, not justice systems. People are sometimes convicted of crimes they did not commit. If given a life sentence, they can be freed if new evidence proves their innocence. If executed, well...

This was part of a later post you responded to:
[i]You ignore the is ...[text shortened]... , or is expediency? Society can be protected without resorting to govermnent sponsored murder.

Again, none of my comments say that I want them dead to get vengence on them. My comments are stating that it is better for them to taste death than to taste freedom for the sake of the safety of society at large. In all practicality, it appears that this is not possible either that or we simply enjoy letting killers go free. I say this because those who murder usually do not spend their entire lives behind bars and even those who are sentenced to life behind bars are sometimes let go anyhow. I conceede that perhaps it is better to let them die behind bars in light of them possibly proving their innocents but not at the expense of them possibly being set free before proving such innocents.

Also, what about my question? Do you think that we die because of sin or is there another reason?

Originally posted by whodey
Again, none of my comments say that I want them dead to get vengence on them. My comments are stating that it is better for them to taste death than to taste freedom for the sake of the safety of society at large. In all practicality, it appears that this is not possible either that or we simply enjoy letting killers go free. I say this because those who m ...[text shortened]... so, what about my question? Do you think that we die because of sin or is there another reason?

If your only issue is setting murderers free, you could just say, "I advocate life sentences without the possibility of parole. I do not advocate the death penalty." But that's not what I keep hearing. So what's your reason for continuing to advocate it?

I don't know why humans die.