why I am against the death penalty

Originally posted by Ray K
Once you allow the government to legally kill its citizenry

Click to expand...

absolutely!! that's what death penalty is, legalised murder. Murder, being the act itself as well as the intention to kill.

Ray, true. Too bad governments don't follow Gods plan.

Romans 13:3
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:


PS praying that you will trust Christ someday soon! Please do!
Julie

Originally posted by Julie
Ray, true. Too bad governments don't follow Gods plan.

Romans 13:3
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:


PS praying that you will trust Christ someday soon! Please do!
Julie

Click to expand...

Not that I am an adherent of the death penalty (it is long abolished in Germany), but to show why some people can justly think it IS God´s plan:

Genesis 9,6

Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Originally posted by Ray K
First of all, even though I am an atheist, I am far from being a bleeding liberal. If I had to describe myself politically, it would probably be as a Libertarian.

Click to expand...

Okay I am a republican but I am against the death penalty. However for the sake of debate I am going to take the other side especially since I do not disagree with it for the reasons you gave.

Why am I against the death penalty? Two reasons:

1. The penal system should not be used for revenge

The system is in place to protect society from criminals, not to quench the bloodthirst of the outraged citizenry. This is not the Colosseum in Rome.

I want our laws and punishments to be done objectively and without emotion or bias. The accused should get a FAIR trial and, if convicted, should receive a JUST punishment commiserate with their crime. However, the purpose is to protect society, not exact revenge. Once someone is incarcerated in a secure prison, they are no longer a threat to society so killing them is unnecessary. [/B]

Click to expand...

Okay I am going to just assume a fair trial because that isnot really what yourargument is about. But do you not see that possibly the fair punishment for some crimes is CP? I mean we can and should have some mercy but what is fair is something else. I would say that CP is fair when someone goes out and killsin cold blood. If someone kills on purpose and in their right mind.

Now about the revenge thing I know many of these cases are much about revenge. However do you think it is possible for the jury to rationally and justly tell a criminal that the state will not show mercy on the individual but will show justice? I have read the crimes of many on death row here in Texas and just reasing it will make you shiver. What some of them did was horrible. Killing people with blunt instruments. arggghhh. I won't talk about it much more.

b]2. The government has no authority over life[/b]

This is a slippery slope argument, and it is valid. Once you allow the government to legally kill its citizenry, for whatever reason, you have set a dangerous precedent. It used to be that only certain kinds of crimes were "capital" offenses. Treason was very rare, so it was usually when you killed a police officer or something like that. But our elected officials love polls and eventually give in to the public thirst for more blood. So the number of capital crimes increases based on what the latest "outrage" is. [/B]

Click to expand...

interesting argument but really not one against CP. Actually just one to more tightly regulate CP and keep it only for certain crimes. And yes it is a slippery slope argument which hurts it a lot.

Let me explain, though, that if some thug killed my wife and/or children, I would certainly want to see him killed. I would probably want to do it myself and wouldn't mind seeing him suffer. Rage can be a very ugly emotion. But since I am a human being, it is natural to be overcome by emotions in traumatic situations. But we have to make sure that our governmen is immune to emotion, because that is when we lose our impartiality and fairness. [/B]

Click to expand...

That is the way it is supposed to work as much as possible but I do not see howwe can get rid of a human element when we have juries. However juries are a good thing. I do not think that I would want government immuneto emotion. But it hasto be emotionless enough to make rational decisions. But that is one reason we have juries and why we do not let one judge just decide on cases like this. Hopefully 12 can be rational together. I know it is not a perfect system but I do not know of one that is better.

And I woudn't make it easy on convicts, either. I don't believe in early releases for "good behavior", or letting guys out because the prisons are full. Build more prisons and keep the dangerous criminals away from society.

In fact, I would not give convicts access to the outer world. No TV, no computers, no newspapers, no basketball games, no weight lifting. These guys are in PRISON. We want them to not like it. Give them access to a library and let them educate themselves. And make them do some work so that they can help repay society for whatever harm they caused. [/B]

Click to expand...

I like what you say here. We in the U.S. give our criminals way too much freedom and stuff.

Originally posted by Julie
Ray, true. Too bad governments don't follow Gods plan.

Romans 13:3
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:


PS praying that you will trust Christ someday soon! Please do!
Julie

Click to expand...

What about "a life for a life"? Or do we not like to talk about that verse when we're bashing the death penalty?

Originally posted by Mallory Knox


What about "a life for a life"? Or do we not like to talk about that verse when we're bashing the death penalty?

Click to expand...

I will give a hearty AMEN on that note. I am fully in support of the death penalty, and I believe that the decline of society is partly due to "over civilization", not the opposite.

It's not politically correct to tell anyone that they must pay for their murderous actions, with an equal act of retrubution.

Such a system does not necessarily need to be based upon revenge, regardless of what some would say. Instead it is based upon unbiased punishment for an equal crime.

Some argue that the death penalty is based upon revenge and over emotional, but their own argument is emotional in itself. In that, it feels sorry for the criminal and evokes emotions of wrongdoing in the punishing authority.

Among the 25 states with the highest murder rates per capita, 23 have the death penalty.

Among the 25 states with the lowest murder rates per capita, 15 have the death penalty.

Seven of the 13 states with the lowest murder rates in the country have no death penalty.

Four of the seven states with the lowest murder rates in the country have no death penalty.

So you see, the death penalty is working really well.

Originally posted by Ray K


What you've demonstrated is that there is no evidence to support the death penalty as a deterrent to crime. Hey, that's a good start.

Click to expand...

the reason that it is no deterrent, is that it is hardly implemented enough. Criminals don't fear the death penalty. Heck, I wouldn't either. even if you do get arrested, you spend months in court telling everyone how terrible your childhood was. Then the chances that a convicted murderer is given the death penalty are about as slim as could be.
Then, if the death penalty is handed down, they spend another 25 years in appeals to get it overturned.

No wonder nobody's deterred by it.

Anybody know the rate of theivery in countries where crooks get their hand cut off, immediately if caught?
I bet it's really low.

Originally posted by Ray K


What you've demonstrated is that there is no evidence to support the death penalty as a deterrent to crime. Hey, that's a good start.

Click to expand...

To quote Jerry Clower:

"The punishment for crime is no deterrent for crime? Whoever said that has never stolen a sugar cake from my Momma's cooling dish.......

I don't even look at a cookie now, unless I call my momma and ask her if it's allright."

Paul puts his stamp of approval on Capital Punishment in Romans 13:

Rom. 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

The issue is not whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent. All punishments are a deterrent. The issue is whether or not the death penalty deters _more effectively_ than life in prison without parole.

Originally posted by Ray K


Then we would expect the murder rate to be higher in states where there is no death penalty at all, but we don't.

Click to expand...

There is no death penalty at all in America? Where have you been?

Originally posted by Ray K

Hey, let's all revert to barbarism!

Click to expand...

My goal would be to establish an orderly and law abiding society. Period. Would you have the guts to do what it takes?

Have you ever heard the true story of Vlad Tepes and the golden cup?

Originally posted by Ray K


Read the posts. Some states do not have the death penalty. In those states, the murder rate is lower.

Click to expand...

As stated before, it is not a true rating because the death penalty is not evenly enforced, even though active.

Originally posted by Ray K
The question is: how far are you willing to go?

Dismembering someone for theft? That is barbaric!

Click to expand...

But how low is the crime rate?

My point was, the punishment can be a deterrent if applied consistantly.

Call it barbaric if you want. It matters not to me.

Ecclesiastes 8:11
Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.

Ezra 7:26
And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.

Ecclesiastes 8:11
Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.

Ezra 7:26
And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.


NUMBERS 35
GOD'S GUIDELINES FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Num. 35:9 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

10. Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come over Jordan into the land of Canaan;

11. Then ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you; that the slayer may flee thither, which killeth any person at unawares.

12. And they shall be unto you cities for refuge from the avenger; that the manslayer die not, until he stand before the congregation in judgment.

13. And of these cities which ye shall give six cities shall ye have for refuge.

14. Ye shall give three cities on this side Jordan, and three cities shall ye give in the land of Canaan, which shall be cities of refuge.

15. These six cities shall be a refuge, both for the children of Israel, and for the stranger, and for the sojourner among them: that every one that killeth any person unawares may flee thither.

16. And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.

17. And if he smite him with throwing a stone, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.

18. Or if he smite him with an hand weapon of wood, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.

19. The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him.

20. But if he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of wait, that he die;

21. Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him.

22. But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait,

23. Or with any stone, wherewith a man may die, seeing him not, and cast it upon him, that he die, and was not his enemy, neither sought his harm:

24. Then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the revenger of blood according to these judgments:

25. And the congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled: and he shall abide in it unto the death of the high priest, which was anointed with the holy oil.

26. But if the slayer shall at any time come without the border of the city of his refuge, whither he was fled;

27. And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill the slayer; he shall not be guilty of blood:

28. Because he should have remained in the city of his refuge until the death of the high priest: but after the death of the high priest the slayer shall return into the land of his possession.

29. So these things shall be for a statute of judgment unto you throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

30. Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.

31. Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death.

32. And ye shall take no satisfaction for him that is fled to the city of his refuge, that he should come again to dwell in the land, until the death of the priest.

33. So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.

34. Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I dwell: for I the LORD dwell among the children of Israel.

Prince Tepes of Wallachia, who reigned from 1456- 1462 insisted on honesty by all, and detested theivery. He announced any thieves caught red-handed would be immediately staked.


To test the effectiveness of this law he placed a golden cup in Tirgoviste square, directly next to the town's main well for drawing water. It is recorded that a group of merchants once passed through Tirgoviste square, asking for a replenishment on their supply of water. When they were handed the solid gold cup to drink from, they were amazed at how trusting the people were to leave such a valuable piece for just anyone to drink from. When they asked the people whether they were afraid that someone would try to steal the cup, the people just stared at them as if they were fools.

During Tepes' entire reign, the cup was never stolen.
--------------------------------------------------------


They were afraid to steal!!!!! Get it? Call it barbaric, but I will call it effective.