Views on death penalty

[John D Harris]

I'm for the death penalty, because it is punishment for ones actions, hense the word "penalty". The death penalty is not supposed to be retrobution (sp?) revenge, a deterent or anything else. It is one of the punishments that the law makers of the USA have decided can be applicable for certain crimes. Sentencing a criminal to death is not passing judgement on where said criminal will spend eternity or their position with God, it is passing judgment on a convicted criminal's actions under the law.

[Sparhawk]

The prob for me is as follows...

Evryother freakin country in the world ( with few exceptions ) have stopped the use of death penalty because it is a un-civilized way of punishing people.
And HEY what do ya know...the USA has a LOOOT more crime than any other country...and a lot more death crimes...wouldn´t it be an idea to see if some of all those dreadfully murders would lessen if the USA tried to aplly some kind of restriction on gunlaws.
But noooooo...( sarcastic ) that would break the old ways and USA is a "free" country and everybodu has the right to defend yourselves...thus also clinging to the death penalty!

I am reading a lot of post saying the death penalty is not a revenge...the what is it...
Don´t tell me that it is rehabilitation in the Xtreme...detirement Hell no...the logic is exactely that...THERE IS NO FREAKIN LOGIC IN TAKING A LIFE!!!

[John D Harris]

[quote]Originally posted by Yorick:

Oblivion you've completely missed Wellards point. Yes it IS a contradiction. It's the application of double standards. Stronger language is hypocrisy. One rule for oneself, another for everyone else. Wellard has the self knowledge and humility to acknowledge this in himself. It is an understandable contradiction. However, I have taken to putting myself in the shoes of a person convicted of a crime I didn't commit, and asked myself the question - would I want to die? No. And that is the pertinent question for anyone regarding the death penalty. Unless you are prepared to willingly die for a crime you did not commit, you are not prepared to truly uphold the penalty you advocate. You have one rule for yourself, and another for everyone else.

If I had placed myself in the position of having to face the death penalty, I would say kill me. I KNOW the State has zero power to pass judgement on my soul, that is God's place and His alone. My faith demands that I follow the laws of the land, as long as those laws are not in a direct controdiction to the laws of God. ie: law says I must comitt adultery/steal/murder/deny Christ incert opposite of any direct comandment of your choice here.

As for the willingness to die for a crime you did not comitt arguement: The law states the death penalty can only be used on persons found guilty by a jury of their peers, not for just comitting the crime. You have to stand trial, have evidence presented before the court and proven to be guilty by a jury of your peers.

[Timber Loftis]

I read the statement that

Evryother freakin country in the world ( with few exceptions ) have stopped the use of death penalty because it is a un-civilized way of punishing people.

and just knew it had to be wrong. So, I did a little searching. I ran across several interesting links, enjoy them if you like.

http://www.uaa.alaska.edu/just/death/intl.html

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/aboutdp.html

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/20..._fallacies.htm

[Sparhawk]

Timber I bow for your research but try looking at the civilized countries...and if you wanna compare USA with small time pette states that kill people for saying that the system is wrong then that is your choice...I´d probally feel better as an american if I could relate to Europe

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Sparhawk: I am reading a lot of post saying the death penalty is not a revenge...the what is it... Don´t tell me that it is rehabilitation in the Xtreme...detirement Hell no...the logic is exactely that...THERE IS NO FREAKIN LOGIC IN TAKING A LIFE!!!

PUNISHMENT for breaking the law of the land. It is one of the effects of a cause. A reaction of the State to an action of the individual. Now the families of the victim may view it as revenge but the families of victoims don't serve on the jury that asigns guilt or innocence(sp?), nor do they pull the switch of execution. I hate to be cold, not really but it sounds good the feelings of the families of victims should be irrelavent. These laws are passed by the leaders elected to make those kinds of decisions, not by victims families.

[Timber Loftis]

Well, moreover Sparhawk, the second link indicates that a majority of all nations have outlawed the DP -- so you were not far off the mark to begin with.

I think we may end up losing a part of our humanity by taking the DP off the table. Reducing the penalties for crimes and wrongdoing can, over time, give us a world where criminals can be blatant. While it may seem humane today to refuse to take someone's life as punishment, tommorrow we may realize that we have left our citizens coddled and spoiled and even less willing to accept responsibility for their actions.

I watched a report on a diamond heist in Antwerp. Well, the guy who is known to have planned the job showed up in Antwerp rather blatantly and got arrested. It was almost as if he wanted to get caught. Why, you ask? Because under Belgium law, even if convicted he will serve a maximum of 6 years in jail despite the fact he stole millions. Then, when he's out, he can enjoy his retirement in style. Six years seems a small price to pay.

The case made me think that Europeans may generally be too soft on crime. I wonder if Europe's laws are generally too lax, and that the abolotion of the DP is merely part of a larger trend that European countries have for simply being softer on crime.

Maybe it's been the result of 1,000-year knee-jerk to Telemachus sacrificing himself in the Roman gladiatorial arena (which sparked a quick end to the Colosseums).

[Timber Loftis]

Maybe we bring back the Viking Allthing's rule: if the vicitm's family pursues its grievance with a court and wins, the court grants the family premission to exact retribution. How's that?

[Timber Loftis]

Does anyone else find it weird that in the last few hundred years we have "advanced" to be above the morally-reprehensible notion of killing the guilty for heinous crimes while at the same time we have also "advanced" to an enlightened understanding that a woman who doesn't want her lifestyle cramped can kill her innocent fetus?

I guess the moral lesson is freedom trumps all. ??? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] Somewhere Khaine and the other Eldar gods are just waiting, waiting....

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Does anyone else find it weird that in the last few hundred years we have "advanced" to be above the morally-reprehensible notion of killing the guilty for heinous crimes while at the same time we have also "advanced" to an enlightened understanding that a woman who doesn't want her lifestyle cramped can kill her innocent fetus? I guess the moral lesson is freedom trumps all. ??? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] Somewhere Khaine and the other Eldar gods are just waiting, waiting....

Her body, her decision. Whereas the death penalty would be his/her life, our decision. That just popped into my mind. Would that perhaps be an answer?