... taking the easy road[?]
I heard both side of the issue. No NEW facts. Maybe I should have not said anything. But what I'm stating is no one is going to change anyone stands unless this subject is new to other members. That's all.
Death Penalty
- Thread starter Jessica.C
- Start date
- Status
I heard both side of the issue. No NEW facts. Maybe I should have not said anything. But what I'm stating is no one is going to change anyone stands unless this subject is new to other members. That's all.
So you are of the opinion that it is impossible for a person to change his mind? I have changed my opinion before once someone has given a good enough argument.
I guess you members are pretty civil on this topic. I seen on other forums, the moderator would have to lock the thread.
I guess discussion here is for people who are on the "fence" where they stand or haven't seen all pros and cons.
I do have a stand on this issue. But as strange as it sounds I do understand the opposing side and respect their side.
your_death_1994
New Member
- Messages
- 21
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Hmm, I'm against it.
Killing someone for making a mistake or doing something wrong, is to barbaric.
Another point, a man goes to court, says he is innocent, but the judge send him for the death penalty because the evidence points towards him. He is killed. 6 months later, the investigator says "Sorry, i made a mistake. The murderer wasn't the guy we killed 6 months ago. Its some other guy." Lol you just took someones life because someone made a mistake. Now are you going to kill the investigator for making the mistake, finding some other guy that could be the murderer or just not have a death punishment?
Killing someone for making a mistake or doing something wrong, is to barbaric.
Another point, a man goes to court, says he is innocent, but the judge send him for the death penalty because the evidence points towards him. He is killed. 6 months later, the investigator says "Sorry, i made a mistake. The murderer wasn't the guy we killed 6 months ago. Its some other guy." Lol you just took someones life because someone made a mistake. Now are you going to kill the investigator for making the mistake, finding some other guy that could be the murderer or just not have a death punishment?
For those of use who believe the Bible is God's Word, God says "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. " (Gen 9:6). So God institute the death penalty.
To me, God has never been wrong, so the death penalty must be right. Some people may say that is a simplistic viewpoint, but they, like everyone else, has not been able to demolish the arguments for abolishing it by the force of logical argument alone. The fact that this thread exists simply shows that no end of the debate is in sight.
In other words, there are very valid logical arguments supporting capital punishment. The fact that God started it just makes it a done deal for me.
---------- Post added at 04:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:15 PM ----------
Apologies - some corrections required...
For those of use who believe the Bible is God's Word, God says "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. " (Gen 9:6). So God institute the death penalty.
To me, God has never been wrong, so the death penalty must be right. Some people may say that is a simplistic viewpoint, but they, like everyone else, have not been able to demolish the reasons for having it, by the force of logical argument alone. The fact that this thread exists simply shows that no end of the debate is in sight.
In other words, there are very valid logical arguments supporting capital punishment. The fact that God started it just makes it a done deal for me.
To me, God has never been wrong, so the death penalty must be right. Some people may say that is a simplistic viewpoint, but they, like everyone else, has not been able to demolish the arguments for abolishing it by the force of logical argument alone. The fact that this thread exists simply shows that no end of the debate is in sight.
In other words, there are very valid logical arguments supporting capital punishment. The fact that God started it just makes it a done deal for me.
---------- Post added at 04:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:15 PM ----------
Apologies - some corrections required...
For those of use who believe the Bible is God's Word, God says "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. " (Gen 9:6). So God institute the death penalty.
To me, God has never been wrong, so the death penalty must be right. Some people may say that is a simplistic viewpoint, but they, like everyone else, have not been able to demolish the reasons for having it, by the force of logical argument alone. The fact that this thread exists simply shows that no end of the debate is in sight.
In other words, there are very valid logical arguments supporting capital punishment. The fact that God started it just makes it a done deal for me.
outa_dis_world24
New Member
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
As far as i want the death penalty to be granted, the Govenment here in South Africa does not support it. Even though we have tried to get them to approve it to no avail. There are many Inmates in Sun City who are serving life sentences who are supposed to be dead by now but re still alive, in prison and busy enjoying our taxes.
I support the death penalty 100% and i think these murderers should be also taken down.
I support the death penalty 100% and i think these murderers should be also taken down.
nooblet7775
New Member
- Messages
- 3
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
It's a very touchy subject but I guess I'm for it overall, but only for the right situations. Some people are better off suffering through life in prison but others just need to go right then.
ptkeating55
New Member
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Murder is considered killing only if it is in self-defence, defence of others or if it is accidental. That is the law as it pertains to the ordinary human. The state is expected to have a higher moral standard than the ordinary person. So what justification can it have? The state does not fear for its life from one incarcerated death-row inmate. The state does not need to kill a death-row inmate to defend its citizens; the inmate is in prison; the citizens are yet defended. The state is not accidentally sending thousands of volts through people who happen to sit in the wrong chair; there is some premeditation involved. One must therefore conclude that a state with an enforced death penalty is guilty of murder, by its own definition of that word.
- Messages
- 3,295
- Reaction score
- 227
- Points
- 63
It's the other way 'round, actually. Murder is homicide that is not: sanctioned by law, including legal acts of war; or justifiable (in self-defense or in the defense of others, usually subject to a "reasonability" requirement).
Let's get this much straight: no matter what side of the fence you come down on in moral terms on the taking of a life, much of what is being bandied about is based on a false premise, that being the natural right to life. It is, as they say, "a fond thing, vainly invented".
In order for human society to work, that society must, for its own preservation, constrain the acts of individuals, and impose sanctions to enforce the prohibition of such acts as might destroy it. Humans are fundamentally social creatures, essentially defenseless and doomed to extinction without the transmission of culture and technology through society. We live together or die separately (and remember that whatever tools you were envisioning to enhance your chances of survival, you either acquired or learned of through the work of others). Thus we need to have prohibitions against things like people killing other people on their own say-so. If we had to fear death every time we accidentally ticked somebody off, we wouldn't be spending a whole lot of time in one another's company, would we? With neither claw nor fang nor great strength nor speed, we wouldn't have lasted very long as loners.
That prohibition against murder (unsanctioned killing of another human being) can be rightly called a "natural law". But it does not logically follow that if I am prohibited from killing you under most circumstances that you have some fundamental right not to be killed under any circumstance.
If there is a moral issue involved in capital punishment, it is not based on something the guilty possess, but rather what we who sit in judgement possess. We, as a society, decide to sanction a killing or not based on our own values, not on the "rights" of the convicted party. If a society sanctions killing in retribution (which is the only righteous justification for punishment, as C. S. Lewis so eloquently stated) then it is not murder (by definition). If it does not--if it considers some other retributive measure more appropriate--then the question is moot.
Let's get this much straight: no matter what side of the fence you come down on in moral terms on the taking of a life, much of what is being bandied about is based on a false premise, that being the natural right to life. It is, as they say, "a fond thing, vainly invented".
In order for human society to work, that society must, for its own preservation, constrain the acts of individuals, and impose sanctions to enforce the prohibition of such acts as might destroy it. Humans are fundamentally social creatures, essentially defenseless and doomed to extinction without the transmission of culture and technology through society. We live together or die separately (and remember that whatever tools you were envisioning to enhance your chances of survival, you either acquired or learned of through the work of others). Thus we need to have prohibitions against things like people killing other people on their own say-so. If we had to fear death every time we accidentally ticked somebody off, we wouldn't be spending a whole lot of time in one another's company, would we? With neither claw nor fang nor great strength nor speed, we wouldn't have lasted very long as loners.
That prohibition against murder (unsanctioned killing of another human being) can be rightly called a "natural law". But it does not logically follow that if I am prohibited from killing you under most circumstances that you have some fundamental right not to be killed under any circumstance.
If there is a moral issue involved in capital punishment, it is not based on something the guilty possess, but rather what we who sit in judgement possess. We, as a society, decide to sanction a killing or not based on our own values, not on the "rights" of the convicted party. If a society sanctions killing in retribution (which is the only righteous justification for punishment, as C. S. Lewis so eloquently stated) then it is not murder (by definition). If it does not--if it considers some other retributive measure more appropriate--then the question is moot.
Last edited:
zeldaprajihd45
New Member
- Messages
- 48
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
So is euthanasia right when applied to people whose families aren't wealthy enough to pay the bill?
kinley3
New Member
- Messages
- 119
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
That's a totally different issue altogether. It really doesn't have anything to do with the death penalty or fiscal responsibility on the part of the government. Hospitals are generally a bit different than prisons in that insurance monies help keep them solvent. I just don't see how you draw the parallel between totally tax dependent jails/prisons and hospitals. They're two different animals.
But since you asked, I believe that to be a choice that each individual family must make for itself. And there are more variables that go into such a choice than whether the family has the money to pay for keeping the individual alive. The depth of suffering and/or lack of quality of life are two big issues. I'm not saying euthanasia is right or wrong. But I could certainly understand why it could be an option in certain circumstances.
But since you asked, I believe that to be a choice that each individual family must make for itself. And there are more variables that go into such a choice than whether the family has the money to pay for keeping the individual alive. The depth of suffering and/or lack of quality of life are two big issues. I'm not saying euthanasia is right or wrong. But I could certainly understand why it could be an option in certain circumstances.
zeldaprajihd45
New Member
- Messages
- 48
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Well because your whole argument was based on how expensive it is to keep people in jail but indeed hospital are more expensive and insurance companies have a limit on how much they pay.
ante.allah.fjante51
New Member
- Messages
- 39
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I would say no.
it is wrong, sure the person killed other people, what gives the state the right to do the same?
Murder is murder, no matter if it is a murderer being murdered, or if it is the state or a civilian, the deed is the same.
and on that matter, what happens if the 'murderer's' innocence is proven.... after the deed has been done?
they cannot undo death.
to quote Gandalf (yes a quote from a fantasy movie) :
Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends.
those are my general views on the subject.
it is wrong, sure the person killed other people, what gives the state the right to do the same?
Murder is murder, no matter if it is a murderer being murdered, or if it is the state or a civilian, the deed is the same.
and on that matter, what happens if the 'murderer's' innocence is proven.... after the deed has been done?
they cannot undo death.
to quote Gandalf (yes a quote from a fantasy movie) :
Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends.
those are my general views on the subject.
- Status