peterson get death

It also says in the Bible that a man came back from the dead, fed five thousand people with a loaf of bread and a few fish, and turned water into wine. Just because it is written in a Holy book that no doubt brings great happiness/comfort/support/guidance to billions doesn't mean that we all have to agree with it or believe in it's teachings.

Secondly, I am a firm believer that the state should be entirely seperate from religion. As such, the state should not base their laws on *any* religious texts or teachings---whether those beliefs are Christian, Sikh, Muslim, Buddist, or 7th Day Advent Hoppist.

So, just as talking about the financial cost of killing somone should be irrelevant, so should religion.

I am firmly against capital punishment for the following reasons:

1. If taking a life is wrong, then it cannot possibly be right to kill a murderer.
2. It is impossible to undo any mistakes, and as we all know mistakes happen
3. Spending the rest of your life in prison is far worse punishment than being put to sleep "painlessly"
4. The death penalty is not an adequate deterrent. Simply compare the murder rate in countries like the USA (which has a death penalty in many states) with somewhere like the UK (which has no death penalty). There is no evidence that the consequences deter anyone.

Sam

 

you take this to mean that god advocates killing killers, but i take it as a description of karma, basically whatever you do comes back to you.

<Chris Rock>thats why people shouldn't be racist, 'cause you'll end up with a peurto rican in your family. homophobic? you'll get a gay cousin!</Chris Rock>

why are you so impatient? if you really belkeive in hell, they dude will go there when he dies, hell is still going to be there 40 years from now.

are'nt christians also supposed to turn the other cheek? don't kill someone because they killed someone, sure, send them to jail for the rest of their lives, but what if they are innocent? an innocent person was just killed by the state, all because of your* quest for vengence.

*by "your" i mean all people who are pro death, not just TJK

 

Just curious, what religion are you?? I have faith that the Bible is true, so therefore my beliefs are rooted in the Bible.

It was said earlier that Christians were to "turn the other cheek", and forgive. But should the policeman on the corner say "I forgive you" after you just robbed the grocery at gunpoint? Church and state should exist, but there is some overlap. The government should share some of the same common morals and virtues as the church, and not any specific denomination or religion. I personally dont know of any religion that is ok with letting killers go without being justly punished.

This has been the way of doing thing since the beginning of time, and now you are suggesting they are wrong? I just have a hard time disputing things that have been in place for 5000+ years with little objection except for the past century.

You do have somewhat of a point here, but in areas of the US where the death penalty is strongly enforced (Texas and more) murder rates are considerably lower.


I hope I don't insult or anger anyone with this, I am simply stating what I know to be true.

 

I'm not religious. I believe in what I can see and what I can prove.

You are missing the point. Clearly, the police should not be expected to show forgiveness. No one is saying that. The point is that punishments should not be set on the basis of the teachings of a religion. Punishments should be decided by the Government, who should not take the beliefs of any one religion over any other. And there is absolutely no reason why church and state should overlap.

For instance, I don't need a bible to tell me that killing is wrong. It's wrong regardless of whether or not a book says so. Nor does the bible mention drug dealing, insurance fraud, or bank robbery- but these things are still illegal!

Slavery was commonplace for hundreds (if not thousands) of years, but that doesn't mean it was ok. It is the sign of a weak argument if all you have is "we've always done it this way".

I would be willing to bet that the murder rate is lower because of socieo-economic reasons rather than because of the deterrent.

You should be very careful when using the word "true" in discussions like this, especially when religion gets involved.

Now, I am not trying to belittle religions or people that choose to believe in them---but it is my belief that religion has no place when it comes to setting or upholding the law.

Cheers

Sam

 

I must say I disagree with this, at least in the United States. This US was founded on the truths of the Word of God. The pilgrims and other settlers established colonies here with the foremost reason being the freedom of religion. The founding fathers of the US based the country on biblical truths, morals, and ideals. Not to say that they did it perfectly, but that was the way the country was intended to be. You are correct that slavery is wrong, and that is one of the mistakes that the founders of the US made.

 

it is true that many of the original immigrants to america were christian, and a lot of laws are similar to the bible (on a side note, commandments 6-10 are OK with me), but thats where it ends. we do not live in a theocracy (we are currently waging a crusade on the holy land, but thats because of the mental midget in office) we live in a democracy, where we are supposedly free, and the best measure of freedom is the distance between church and state.

the basic stance is don't talk to me, i won't talk to you

since the beginning of time, we beleived that the earth was the center of the universe, we beleived it simply because thats what has always been beleived. then the day came when someone looked at the numbers, and saw we were wrong; something that has always been beleived was wrong! psychos right, just because it's always been beleived doesn't mean it's right.

TJK, do you beleive in womens rights? because the woman is subservient in the bible, and the woman is almost always the villian. (eve eating the apple, delilia shaving sampson, etc.) but if you beleive that a person should be servile simply because they have a vagina i will tell you straight to your face you are wrong... then i'll slap some sense into you. no offense

found a funny quiz, see which psycho funalmentalist said it

 

Some good posts here... which nevertheless never stops me from adding my bit.

Perhaps you have to ask yourself instead: what's the reason for killing them? Revenge? That's not very Christian... Punishment? Punishment is a reinforcer designed to change behaviour. Once a person is dead however, they can hardly change their ways. Deterrent? It doesn't work (statisitics show that). Everybody who kills, at that time is either thinking they'll get away with it, not actually thinking about the consequences at all, or accepting them as inevitable --otherwise they wouldn't do it, right? Prevention of re-occurence? Death penalty would work, definitely, but so would life imprisonment. At least if you make a mistake you have an out. In the end financial considerations, or the relative comfort of the prisoner shouldn't matter. If we want to say that we're the "good guys", better than criminals, we have to treat people better than criminals do. We do not have the same options available as the "bad guys".

I believe that certain principles are good principles to live by. I believe some philosophies and religions recognise that, and basically all say the same thing; same goes for their prophets. I believe that thousands of years ago there were many prophets, men driven by conviction and insight, and that one or two made an impact. Jezus probably was someone like that: right time of chaos and uncertaintly, he brought content (meaining) back to religion that had got stuck in form (meaningless ritual and props). I do not believe in the miracles ascribed to him; I think these were just embellishments as the story was passed on, reflecting the psychological impact he had made on people. I also believe he was just the kid of a naive, sweet girl who got knocked up out of wedlock (as happened a lot in those days) and thus had to be married off quickly to an older man. But I believe all that does not matter. It is the principles he spoke of and lived by that matter, not the miracles.

I also believe that the origins of the Bible was to try and impose some law and order on a scattered people in anarchic, barbaric times (6-10 of the ten commandments, for instance. But even here religion served as a means to bind people together and attain some social control: see commandments 1-4). As such it reflects those times: laws had to be black-and-white, harsh and direct, and immediately applied. Only in the New Testament Jesus came along and started questioning those laws ("Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone") and inject some understanding of the trespass into the judgment and punishment of it.

I believe we should, too. But this is complex and sometimes painful stuff, and requires us to suspend our more basic emotional urge for an-eye-for-an-eye type revenge for a confrontation of some painful and scary thruths, often about the world we live in but also about ourselves (hence people in this thread seem to have had a real difficulty with noting and answering my question all along: What is our motivation for killing the murderer?).

 

Is anyone here in favor of the death penalty? There were quite a few when this thread started. GMan, MonkeyBoy, Ubermich where are you? I can't argue this all on my own.

Are you talking about the relationship between the church and state?

Sure I believe that women have rights, but sometimes they are not quite equal to those of men. In my family, my mom is submissive to my dad. My dad is the leader of the house. I also believe that women should'nt serve in the highest office in the land (president) as well as women shouldnt be ministers of Gods word (preachers, pastors, etc). But in regard to voting, job equality and more, both sexes should be somewhat equal. However, if women want equality, then what about drafting them into the military? I know this poses an entirely different topic, but how far should womens rights be extended?

In response to your question about motivation, there is no answer. This can be disputed until our fingers fall off. It is not our choice, nor any one persons. It needs to be decided by the state, a "religously neutral" organization.

 

Why not? If your arguments are sound, numbers don't matter. One person can be right where a thousand can be wrong.

All the way. Women are not a seperate species, they are fellow humans beings. They have cognitive abilities equal to those of males (I am a neuropsychologist, so don't even try to enter debate with me on that one, OK?). They have led countries, commanded armies, been saints and prophets.

Whoa there. You can't fervently argue in favour of the Death Penalty and ask why a murderer should be kept alive, only to avoid the question on what your motivations are for having a murderer put to death, instead saying that "well, it's not our decision anyway". You're just copping out now, and this proves exactly my point made time and again: facing our own motives in this is uncomfortable stuff. Don't hide behind "Because the Bible says so...". I want to hear YOUR motivations for having a murderer put to death.

 

I totally agree with that, but you are a neuropsychologist, and there are a few others that are debating me, and no doubt that both you and they also have more wisdom than I. I am asking for those in support of the death penalty to share their wisdom as well.

I am not trying to argue that men are superior to women, because they aren't. Your are totally correct that they have led countries, commanded armies, and have been saints and prophets. However, up until the point where the liberal media began to undermine the leadership of men, men were typically the leaders in the home, the state, and in the business world. This is now beginning to change, but the media is constantly underwriting the role of a man as the head of the household, which should not be. The role of women in business and politics is still somewhat controversial, but is becoming more and more commonplace. However, there is still the sense that a man carries a little more psychological clout than women do. For instance, many leaders of countries are men. (I am not talking about Canada, GB, and others where the King/Queen is more of a symbol ((I believe Parliament in England actually does more of the ruling than the Queen)) than a ruling power). The point I am trying to make is that I don't think women are the best choice for a ruler of a country. This is a personal opinion, and if you disagree, that is fine by me.

Now, back to the death penalty

In defense to this, I was wrong to try to dodge the question of why a murderer should be put to death. Here is a hodgepodge of what I think is right.
One who kills another man(or woman) intentionally needs to be punished

The punishment should fit the crime.

Giving someone the death penalty for robbing a store at gunpoint is obviously wrong, and hitting someone with a car and fatally wounding them probably isnt a good enough reason for death, but how do you punish someone who intentionally takes another life? I think an adaquate punishment is being put on death row for 5 or so years, and then execution.

Today's maximum security prisons are almost comfortable (Several years ago i toured one that was just completed, before inmates were transported in). The kitchens that the food was prepared in was immaculate, better than most restaurants. The exercise gym had more machines and activities than my YMCA or local gym. The cells had bunk beds with semi-nice mattresses, desks, and good toilet facilities. The inmates were able to purchase comptuers for their cells from the prison store, as well as visit the large library. The prison yard was large, and had softball fields and other areas to roam. Now needless to say, the inmates are still in prison, but its not exactly a bad place to be. I was locked in a solitary confinement cell to see what it was like, and there was a place to sit down and sleep. Life in prison is not a harsh enough punishment for today's killers.

There have been problems with convicting innocent people, but with the new technology we have, forensics, the internet, and the speed at which police can share information and communicate makes the probability of an innocent life being taken.

In the case where there is not beyond-a-doubt proof that the suspect is the killer, the convict would be placed on death row with a waiting period for witnesses to turn up, and then executed after say 5 or 10 years.

Beyond a doubt convicts would be executed within a year, to save the public the cost of housing, feeding and taking care of them at the cost of upwards of 60k a year.

I know this is easy to say now, but if I were to shoot someone intentionally, I think it would only be right that I should be put in the electric chair or euthanized by lethal injection.

Lastly, I am a Christian, and I have Biblical morals that I choose to live by, and I am influenced by my Christian peers who I look up to and seek out when I am in need of wisdom.

I personally believe that the death penalty should be used in most cases of intentional murder.

 

In response to all that:-

there are many examples of miscarriages of justice that have only come to light decades after the execution, 5-10 years on death row to let evidence come forwards is rather pointless when it is discovered after 11 years...

So prisons aren't as nasty as they used to be..... What has that got to do with the death penalty. Campaign to make prison life tougher, whether a prison is nice or not shouldnt really affect your opinion on the death penalty, likewise to the cost of keeping them in prison.

If prisons were much more unpleasant places to live than you perceive them to be at the moment, and the taxpayer didnt have to pay for them. Would you be advocating the death penalty to such an extent?

What happened to the bible preaching about forgiveness? Is it a selective memory thing? or do you forgive them and then want to kill them?

 

Precisely. If being in prison is not enough of a punishment (and believe you me, if they were as pleasant as some people make them out to be then the homeless would be queuing up to be let in) then campaign to make prisons harsher. Life imprisonment should mean just that. Arguing for the death penalty because prisons "aren't punishment enough" is a cop out.

This is the best thing about basing what you believe on what you are told by some centuries-old text- if you take a Bible (or just about any religious text, I'm not just thinking about Christianity here) then you can probably find a quote to support just about any point of view you like. cf "thou shalt not kill" with the "eye for an eye" stuff.

It is my experience that there are a great number of "Christians" out there (and I'm not talking about any member of bT here, I want to make that clear) that could do well with remembering what the Bible teaches about love and forgiveness. Take Ian Paisley [he's a northen irish politician for those who don't know him]- I'm sure he would describe himself as a "good christian" but I have never heard him say anything that wasn't motivated by hatred and anger. Further, consider Osama Bin Laden. A self-confessed "Good Muslim". He is anything but!

Cheers

Sam

 

Yes, but the problem with Ian Paisley and Osama bin Laden and the like is that they could very well be using religion for their own ends -- who's to say that these guys just pretend to believe it, and are twisting and manipulating it to create loyal soldiers? Besides which, everything can be interpreted in many differenet ways, centuries-old religious texts included. For instance, with thou shalt not kill, does that mean kill in any sense of the word? So can you not destroy a suffering animal? Or does it mean kill a human? With that, what if you had a madman with his finger over the trigger of a nuke? Would it be justifiable in God's eyes to kill that man if it saved the lives of many innocents?

I'm a Chirstian myself, but I do not take the Bible as gospel (no pun intended) -- we must all interpret, evaluate and formulate morals for ourselves. While I believe that unjustifiable killing (murder) is totally wrong and an abhorrent concept, I believe that there are situations where violence is acceptable, and sometimes right, defence of innocent lives being one of them. I think that by exectuting murderers, you are certainly saving innocent peoples' lives. Simply sticking them in a cushy prison for a few decades (or even for life, not that life imprisonment actually means that any more) is not a deterrent. I'm all for tougher sentences and tough prisons, but there is a problem. Nowadays, with the overly-PC and overly-litiginous society that we live in, tough prisions will lead to (for want of better words) a lot of lawsuits -- so tough jail simply ain't going to happen. what have we left? Making fools out of crimilas? Well, same problem. Mental rehabilitation? Nice idea if it worked. Exectution in extreme circumstances (like premeditated murder)? Well, it would certainly put a lot of people off.

 

Which is precisely why religion has no place in this debate!

Prison is not as cushy as you seem to think it is. And, as has been stated time and time again---if prison is not tough enough then we need to make prison tougher. Make life sentences mean life.

Killing people because prison isn't tough enough is just stupid. Sure, we may get lawsuits but all that needs to be done is to throw them out of court. You don't deal with a "problem" by burying your head in the sand and just taking the easy option...

It doesn't though! If the death sentence was a deterrent then the murder rate in the UK would have leapt when we got rid of it- but it didn't.

The majority of murders are committed in the heat of the moment. Consequences are not something that comes to mind when you catch your wife in bed with your neighbour...

Sam

 

OK, so it looks like I have been crushed by like 10 people on the pro-death penalty idea. So, if you all are so adamantly against the death penalty, what should we do? How are we going to put killers away so they aren't a harm to the general public? FINANCES are an object! We dont have unlimited money to just keep building prisons, so there either has to be away to rehabilitate or get rid of, because we cant just build a new prison every 6 months

 

shipping them to australia always worked in the past

but seriously, if you believe in something strongly enough the cost shouldn't matter at all.

 

Well, we could start by making it harder to kill people, so why don't we start by banning handguns? </stirring>

Finances are a problem for a lot of things, sadly. Personally I would like to see 2-3pence added onto income tax here in the uk. The amount of good things that the money could be spent on would far outweigh the negative of being a few quid worse off at the end of the month...

[NB: note to Gordon Brown and Tony Blair: "good things" means the NHS, Education, and the Police. It does NOT include bombing the **** out of the middle east.]

Sam

 

Have you not been reading? Everyone who is pro-death penalty has thrown up the argument that we can't afford life time imprisonment. It has been shot down everytime.

You are not doing yourself any favours by throwing up arguments that have allready been invalidated.

 

how could you even consider the cost of a human life?

if you were held hostage, would you want someone to refuse to pay your ransom when they have the money, but they would rather spend it on a war that has no end?

 

True, but sadly, in our depraved world, money is something to remember. If taxes went up to cover it, more people would balk and complain, but would it be worth it? Probably, but there are more issues than just the death penalty that need money. Where do you draw the line?

Go ahead and bash me! Sure it has been shot down every time, but there still has been no answer but to raise taxes to cover them. Give me a good answer and i'll shut up.

Well, there is no value to human life that is tangible, but the war on terror (I think that is waht you are talking about) is definately necessary. The US is a much safer place because of the actions in regard to 9/11. We still have a long way to go, but invading Iraq was necessary, as well as Afghanistan. Please dont start arguing this, as we are already getting off topic.

Then, are all human lives worth the same? I think I can say as a Christian that they are, but since we threw out all religions, then maybe they arent.
For example;
Why should I care about the life of a serial killer that killed my friends friend? Who cares if he gets the death penalty? He deserves it anyway. His life isnt worth anything, and he is just a public expense, so why not get rid of him?

You see, when you take out morals from the government, things start to fall apart! The death penalty is there not only for the felons themselves, but the people that have been hurt by what they did. It offers some peace of mind that someone had to suffer for what they did. Forgiveness is there, but could you forgive the man who took your father's life at age 14? I dont know if I could if I was in their place. I would want to see him killed as soon as possible to get him out of my mind to let the healing process begin.