by Country Girl 101 Replies latest jw friends
In rainbows: Killing people is wrong because killing people is wrong.
Are you tying to put me out of work?
Do you want hungry lions and tigers on your conscience and a world over-run by Christians?
Try to see the bigger picture and stop being narrow minded, will ya?
Morituri te salutant
A consistent ethic towards life.
Maybe if they were forced to perform some kind of productive labor, grow food, or do SOMETHING other than lay around in a prison like a societal parasite sucking up our resources.
Actually, the U.S. prison system is the country’s largest source of sanctioned “free” labor. “Free” in the sense that the inmates are paid significantly substandard wages (in Cali, $.30 to $.95 per hour, after deductions - http://www.pia.ca.gov/), if anything at all (but not “free” if you count what tax payers pay to have them incarcerated). Each state has its own Prison Industry organization.
the state shouldn't kill its own citizens, what if it gave the authority to do so to the victim's family?
That was the practice under the Old Law...
I think he did it based on what his lawyer put forth to defend him.
Defense lawyers aren’t perfect. Some suck, in fact, particularly if they are public defenders (i.e., accused has no money for a good defense – thus, in the words of the late Johnny Cochran, “The color of justice… is green.”) The fact that “more than 100 people that have been released from Death row” might show this.
They could (and likely would) form colonies that would be Ostracism Wastelands. There, they would have the chances to start creating value and redeem themselves. The ones that reformed and became value creators could ultimately be accepted back into society. The others would end up starving to death, without costing us a penny in tax dollars.
And allow them to govern themselves? Perhaps they would also come up with a way to rehabilitate themselves? Who knows? But how would we know that they actually “reformed and became value creators”? What would be the test?
Death...this was the sentence for those who prey on society, whether its a life of drugs, crime, sexual attack, murder, God set the law and HE knows we are imperfect and kill a few that are innocent to keep our homes safe, follow the law of execution and let God sort em out. He is the only one who can pronounce innocence.
Yes, but God didn’t grant it to the community to carry out the sentence in all cases… but rather, to the family of the victim… IF the family chose to do so… and, in some instances, IF the “avenger” could catch the perpetrator before he (the perp) reached a city of refuge (where he had to stay until the high priest died… which could be a lifetime). There was a reason for this (giving the family the option and supplying cities of refuge) – to allow those who could and would show mercy… to do so. That was always preferable to carrying out the sentence, as Christ - who came to bear witness to the truth - demonstrated.
The Mosaic code stipulated the death penalty for a variety of horrible crimes such as murder and rape.
However, the ultimate purpose of that Code was NOT the fulfillment of the penalties, but the forgiveness of the transgression (see above). Thus, one could either allow themselves to get caught up in the issue of the “trespassing” of the Law… and so hold the transgressor to task… OR could allow themselves to be caught away by “surpassing” the Law… with love and mercy (against which there is no law)… and set the transgressor free. Now, the transgressor didn’t necessarily get to stay in the community… but he/she didn’t have to die, either.
Although the Law appears to dictate that putting transgressors to death HAD to be done… that truly was not the case. How do we know? We look to the Fulfiller of the Law, Christ. Under the Law, adulterers were to be stoned to death. So, they brought him a woman caught in the act. Did he stone her? No. Could he have? Yes – he was “without sin.” Did he violate the Law when he DIDN’T stone her? No. Why? Because he surpassed the Law… by forgiving her… and releasing her.
Please know that this not an attempt to say there should be no death penalty. The death penalty system is part of “the world,” and so the world is going to do what it will… and it is authorized to do so. My comments are so that what the LAW was about is stated truthfully and accurately. I have no personal position on this issue – is it SO totally not for me to say… “with sin” that I am.
Is it just to put to death a paeodphile? You bet, fry them, they will always be wanting to molest when set free, so fry them, the more death penalty the better as far as I am concerned.
Couldn’t something a little less… ummmm… permanent… like, say, castration (no pun intended)… work for them? I don’t know; just asking…
Again, I’m just commenting/asking. The position of God would be as Christ demonstrated and not as the Law seemed to require - i.e., let the one without sin cast the first stone. Which could be hard to swallow if “peace and security” is one’s primary concern (although, I personally doubt that ridding the earth of non-civil criminals would bring that about – IMHO, you’d have to deal with the civil… and perhaps even the ethical and/or moral “criminals” – and I don't mean "adulterers" but, like, for example, the imposters of organizations such as the WTBTS who heinously mislead people as they do - as well, wouldn’t you?).
But, living in the world we do today, I can see how that (yearning for peace and security) can be a primary concern. (So, please don’t send me a tirade of ridiculing responses – I said I understand).
I bid you all peace.
A slave of Christ,
SA
I am a parent. I would not want to see my adult child put to death for anything. So, when my back's to the wall, I'm going to say I'm not for the death penalty. I will say I did not shed a tear for Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacey.
Burn, you surprise me. We don't always agree but I thought you were a little brighter than the "Consistent Ethic...." etc philosophy. It is total feel good pablum, it doesn't even recognize the reality of life and death in the natural world. This is pure lotus position posturing while looking out at the ocean and having some nice grass.
By the way, you asked me a question about my definition of "justice". Well, I know it when I see it, but I damn sure know that the value of an innocent human life can only begin to be balanced against the life of the one who stole it. Anything less is not real justice. Slipping away in a lethal coma is better than what the innocent had to experience in their last terrified moments.
Burn, you surprise me. We don't always agree but I thought you were a little brighter than the "Consistent Ethic...." etc philosophy. It is total feel good pablum, it doesn't even recognize the reality of life and death in the natural world. This is pure lotus position posturing while looking out at the ocean and having some nice grass.
It is NOT pacificsm. And it is an ethic worth exploring.
By the way, you asked me a question about my definition of "justice". Well, I know it when I see it, but I damn sure know that the value of an innocent human life can only begin to be balanced against the life of the one who stole it. Anything less is not real justice. Slipping away in a lethal coma is better than what the innocent had to experience in their last terrified moments.
True justice is to return what was lost, CP cannot do this.
Burn
I think we should let the state decide what the approprate punishment is in most cases. which they do. nothing is perfect but we all know that God will make things right one day.
If a person of sound mind comits an heinous capital crime, he does so (in many states) knowing that he may be killed by the state if convicted of said crime.
In my opinion ... if the state proves the convicted person commited the withing the conditions of the law, the state should allow reasonable appeals and execute punishment.
As far as a hunmane executions.. we are about to kill you. You will be very upset and scared. It will hurt.And you will be dead when it's over.
Modern forensics clears many accused people... it nails the door shut on others. To argue false conviction on poor forensics these days is weak.
If a sane person refuses a state lawyer and goes it alone that is his right. He gets what he wins or loses in court.
We forget the point of this... the guy DID it after it's all said and done.
In sentencing.. the state charges with the maximum charge... if the proof is too weak to support the charge the jury or judge can elect to convict a lesser charge. IE Murder 1 can be reduced to manslaughter if the reasonable proof wont support all the conditions of Murder1 but the evidence points to the accused as having a hand in the homicide without premeditation.
99% of people conviceted had a hand in the crime they are convicted of. What percentage walk away on techincalites or are never arrested at all?
Let the system do it's job. Punishment is supposed to deter crime. If we convicted and piunihed criminals on a consistent basis many in society would find other ways to deal with people they would rape, rob or murder.
Hill
HIll
Do you want hungry lions and tigers on your conscience and a world over-run by Christians?
Christians rock! Of course the world should be over-run by christians, i can't wait!
the convicted person commited the withing the conditions of the law, the state should allow reasonable appeals and execute punishment."
Hmmmm.... the operative word here appears to be "proves." What about situations like this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24207440? And there are hundreds like this.
It seems to me that the logical (and balanced) answer would be... it depends... on which side of the coin one is on in any given circumstance of this kind: that of the victims'... or the falsely accused. Were it you or your loved one, you would most probably choose whichever side applies... at the time... which could differ greatly from what you would choose now.
Perhaps it's best to withhold judgment until the need arises, if and when it does, and, in the meantime, pray (or whatever you do) you never, ever HAVE to choose... either way.
Just my $.02.
Peace!
SA, on her own
