This isn’t a reason for the death penalty, Dave. Why is it appropriate? Why is it just? Why is it worthwhile? What goal are you accomplishing for society?
This isn’t a reason for the death penalty, Dave. Why is it appropriate? Why is it just? Why is it worthwhile? What goal are you accomplishing for society?[/quote]
My personal view is that the only appropriate (just) punishment for the intentional destruction of human life is death in turn. Someone who willfully and with premeditation kills another person forfeits their right to their own existence. If the punishment is to fit the crime, death must be meted out for death–nothing else come close to being sufficient. From a societal standpoint, this sends a clear message that heinous behavior has heinous consequences. Society may or may not benefit (the deterent effect of the death penalty is much debated), but justice is served.
I’m fully aware that no more severe punishment is possible, and would only implement the death penalty in absolutely clear-cut cases (like the one under discussion). Still, I’d hate to see it abolished altogether.
How wonderfully Old Testament.
I suppose we could give them a year’s probation and time served.
[quote=“Anaxagoras”]
How wonderfully Old Testament.[/quote]
An apt description, though I’m an agnostic. One could just as easily say “How wonderfully New Testament”, with equal scorn, to a fan of life in prison.
This isn’t a reason for the death penalty, Dave. Why is it appropriate? Why is it just? Why is it worthwhile? What goal are you accomplishing for society?[/quote]
My personal view is that the only appropriate (just) punishment for the intentional destruction of human life is death in turn. Someone who willfully and with premeditation kills another person forfeits their right to their own existence. If the punishment is to fit the crime, death must be meted out for death–nothing else come close to being sufficient. From a societal standpoint, this sends a clear message that heinous behavior has heinous consequences. Society may or may not benefit (the deterent effect of the death penalty is much debated), but justice is served.
I’m fully aware that no more severe punishment is possible, and would only implement the death penalty in absolutely clear-cut cases (like the one under discussion). Still, I’d hate to see it abolished altogether.[/quote]
“From a societal standpoint, this sends a clear message that heinous behavior has heinous consequences. Society may or may not benefit (the deterent effect of the death penalty is much debated), but justice is served.”
So in other words, you have a reason, but you don’t care whether the evidence its based on is true or not?
This isn’t a reason for the death penalty, Dave. Why is it appropriate? Why is it just? Why is it worthwhile? What goal are you accomplishing for society?[/quote]
My personal view is that the only appropriate (just) punishment for the intentional destruction of human life is death in turn. Someone who willfully and with premeditation kills another person forfeits their right to their own existence. If the punishment is to fit the crime, death must be meted out for death–nothing else come close to being sufficient. From a societal standpoint, this sends a clear message that heinous behavior has heinous consequences. Society may or may not benefit (the deterent effect of the death penalty is much debated), but justice is served.
I’m fully aware that no more severe punishment is possible, and would only implement the death penalty in absolutely clear-cut cases (like the one under discussion). Still, I’d hate to see it abolished altogether.[/quote]
“From a societal standpoint, this sends a clear message that heinous behavior has heinous consequences. Society may or may not benefit (the deterent effect of the death penalty is much debated), but justice is served.”
So in other words, you have a reason, but you don’t care whether the evidence its based on is true or not?[/quote]
Uh, no. My reason is that it is just. Period. I frankly don’t care about deterent effects at all. Sending the message is sufficient, the message being that justice will be done.
How wonderfully Old Testament.[/quote]
An apt description, though I’m an agnostic. One could just as easily say “How wonderfully New Testament”, with equal scorn, to a fan of life in prison.[/quote]
Wouldn’t “How wonderfully New Testament” be forgiving the criminal and letting him go free?
Man, Jesus would have made a lousy criminal judge.
How wonderfully Old Testament.[/quote]
An apt description, though I’m an agnostic. One could just as easily say “How wonderfully New Testament”, with equal scorn, to a fan of life in prison.[/quote]
Wouldn’t “How wonderfully New Testament” be forgiving the criminal and letting him go free?
Man, Jesus would have made a lousy criminal judge.[/quote]
I know I’m going to regret this…but just how forgiving is a Jesus who sends most of humanity into ETERNAL TORTURE at the Last Judgement?
The problem is that every single “well, if the death penalty was perfect” case is stupid. There’s no way the death penalty will even be foolproof – its a system run by people. Innocent people will be executed, and there’s absolutely no way to bring them back. That’s the procedural argument against the death penalty. No amount of whinging about justice will hide the fact that you’re supporting a system that puts innocent people to death.
You don’t even have to get into moral arguments about the state’s right to commit premeditatated murder if a whole bunch of people agree. You don’t have to point out that poor people that are unable to hire good lawyers are put to death more often that rich people.
There are plenty of good arguments against the death penalty, and few for. It doesn’t deter anything, and all that’s left is the “well, I’m glad that person ain’t kicking anymore.”
Dave, I thought Jesus’ dad was the one in charge of that? Of course, I’m not up with religion although I think Athena is kewl.
This is probably not worth getting in to, but I think the interpretation that “Hell” is a fiery underworld of never ending torture is the wrong interpretation. Hell is simply eternal DEATH. And thus I think it’s entirely just if you’re following the logic.
Anyhow… Midnight Son… wow. Is this really you? Impressive :)
Everyone keeps posting how the death penalty serves nothing… no one is really helped if someone is put to death. But how exactly is someone helped in a life sentence?
And I bet for every “put the wrong man to death” case (do these actually exist or is it just some liberal myth?), there’s the “murderer set free only to kill again” case. In fact, I’d wager the latter is MORE frequent. Hell, I’d bet my life on it. And how fair is that exactly?
And whoever posted jail was cruel and unusual punishment… have you actually been in jail? Somehow I doubt it.
I’m no Bible expert, but I’m pretty sure Jesus rarely mentioned Hell. Actually, I’m not sure if he mentioned it at all. I think the whole fire-and-brimstone side of Christianity was brought in by St. Paul. The same guy who brought in most of the other icky elements of modern Christianity, like homophobia and excessively legalistic moral rules.
Damn you Paul! Damn you straight to Hell!!!
The problem is that every single “well, if the death penalty was perfect” case is stupid. There’s no way the death penalty will even be foolproof – its a system run by people. Innocent people will be executed, and there’s absolutely no way to bring them back. That’s the procedural argument against the death penalty. No amount of whinging about justice will hide the fact that you’re supporting a system that puts innocent people to death.
You don’t even have to get into moral arguments about the state’s right to commit premeditatated murder if a whole bunch of people agree. You don’t have to point out that poor people that are unable to hire good lawyers are put to death more often that rich people.
There are plenty of good arguments against the death penalty, and few for. It doesn’t deter anything, and all that’s left is the “well, I’m glad that person ain’t kicking anymore.”[/quote]
XPav, I’m not George Bush. I don’t think executions should be a weekly event. I think they should occur only when there is no doubt whatsoever, and, whether you believe it or not, that does happen.
And yes, when those criteria are met, “I’m glad that person ain’t kicking anymore.”
Heh. Jesus = his Dad, according to the always fun doctrine of the Trinity.
Trinity? Now you’re spouting Matrix! :wink:
I’m no Bible expert, but I’m pretty sure Jesus rarely mentioned Hell. Actually, I’m not sure if he mentioned it at all. I think the whole fire-and-brimstone side of Christianity was brought in by St. Paul. The same guy who brought in most of the other icky elements of modern Christianity, like homophobia and excessively legalistic moral rules.
Damn you Paul! Damn you straight to Hell!!![/quote]
Matthew chapter 25, verses 31 - 46
The Last Judgement
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, escorted by all the angels, then he will take his seat on his throne of glory. All the nations will be assembled before him and he will separate men one from another as the shepherd separates sheep from goats. He will place the sheep on his right hand and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right hand, ‘Come, you whom my Father has blessed, take for your heritage the kingdom prepared for you since the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food; I was thirsty and you gave me drink; I was a stranger and you made me welcome; naked and you clothed me, sick and you visited me, in prison and you came to see me.’ Then the virtuous will say to him in reply, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you; or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and make you welcome; naked and clothe you; sick or in prison and go to see you.’ And the King will answer, ‘I tell you solemnly, in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me.’ Next he will say to those on his left hand, ‘Go away from me, with your curse upon you, to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you never gave me food; I was thirsty and you never gave me anything to drink; I was a stranger and you never made me welcome, naked and you never clothed me, sick and in prison and you never visited me.’ Then it will be their turn to ask, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty, a stranger or naked, sick or in prison, and did not come to your help?’ Then he will answer, ‘I tell you solemnly, in so far as you neglected to do this to one of the least of these, you neglected to do it to me.’ And they will go away to eternal punishment, and the virtuous to eternal life.”
Matthew, Anaxagoras, not Paul. A supposedly direct quote from Jesus himself.
The issue is removing dangerous people from society, life imprisonment does that. Killing them after you’ve caught them and already have them in jail is on the other hand fairly pointless.
And I bet for every “put the wrong man to death” case (do these actually exist or is it just some liberal myth?), there’s the “murderer set free only to kill again” case. In fact, I’d wager the latter is MORE frequent. Hell, I’d bet my life on it. And how fair is that exactly?
So as long as the number of innocents killed does not exceed the number of murderers released everything’s fine? Claiming that it is some kind of “myth” that people have been wrongly executed does strike me as the height of stupidity. Many people have been wrongly imprisoned for crimes they did not commit, only to be released many years later as new evidence surfaces, several people on death row were released as previously unavailable DNA evidence proved their innocence, people who would have been killed had technology not advanced. It does not take a genius to come to the logical conclusion that even if you are unable to point at specific cases the likelyhood of at least one, and probably several wrongful executions is alarmingly high.
And whoever posted jail was cruel and unusual punishment… have you actually been in jail? Somehow I doubt it.
Depends on the jail I’d say.
This isn’t a reason for the death penalty, Dave. Why is it appropriate? Why is it just? Why is it worthwhile? What goal are you accomplishing for society?[/quote]
My personal view is that the only appropriate (just) punishment for the intentional destruction of human life is death in turn. Someone who willfully and with premeditation kills another person forfeits their right to their own existence. If the punishment is to fit the crime, death must be meted out for death–nothing else come close to being sufficient. From a societal standpoint, this sends a clear message that heinous behavior has heinous consequences. Society may or may not benefit (the deterent effect of the death penalty is much debated), but justice is served.
I’m fully aware that no more severe punishment is possible, and would only implement the death penalty in absolutely clear-cut cases (like the one under discussion). Still, I’d hate to see it abolished altogether.[/quote]
“From a societal standpoint, this sends a clear message that heinous behavior has heinous consequences. Society may or may not benefit (the deterent effect of the death penalty is much debated), but justice is served.”
So in other words, you have a reason, but you don’t care whether the evidence its based on is true or not?[/quote]
Uh, no. My reason is that it is just. Period. I frankly don’t care about deterent effects at all. Sending the message is sufficient, the message being that justice will be done.[/quote]
Dave, I’m not trying to be mean here, but you’re saying its just because…it’s just! Seriously, don’t you see a bit of a problem here?
Nope. :) I’m not saying “it’s just because it’s just”. I’m saying it’s just because killers forfeit their own right to life. That makes as much sense as saying it’s just for killers to forfeit their right to live outside a prison, which is your stance.