Death Penalty, is it right or wrong? Options

[*NatiMarie*]

What do you all think? Should there be a death penalty?

Why or why not?

[ravenwings]

I dunno If death penalty is really effective since crime still happens even if their is one in place.

imo if death penalty is suppose to be effective in intimidating people then it should be a public execution televising every detail, it should also be bloody and painful, the same way they killed their victims. But noone would have that, instead it is within closed doors saved for a small audience, The actual execution is done in the most humane of ways, usually by lethal injection. The truth is people cant really handle seeing someone die, some people even argue about the methods of executions whenever a botched execution occurs.

I dont understand the gain either. what is gained from taking away life.
If we kill someone we only lower ourselves to the level of a murderer.

Ghandi ounce said an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind

[Spirited Away]

Ghandi ounce said an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind

PLEASE READ THE WHOLE THREAD. WE'VE ALL COVERED THE GHANDI'S QUOTE ARGUMENT MORE TIMES THAN WE REALLY APPRECIATE. SO, PLEASE, PLEASE, I BEG YOU, READ THE WHOLE THREAD.

I dunno If death penalty is really effective since crime still happens even if their is one in place.

Then what do you suggest? Crimes happen because people are greedy. Whether there is capital punishment or life in prison, or any other punishments are in place, crime will STILL exist. We cannot escape violence.

imo if death penalty is suppose to be effective in intimidating people then it should be a public execution televising every detail, it should also be bloody and painful, the same way they killed their victims. But noone would have that, instead it is within closed doors saved for a small audience, The actual execution is done in the most humane of ways, usually by lethal injection. The truth is people cant really handle seeing someone die, some people even argue about the methods of executions whenever a botched execution occurs.

I do not believe the death penalty will be effective if shown publicly either. In fact, doing so may just have an opposite consequence than you one you imagined. Instead of instilling fear, it may instill a certain resistance to the fear of being executed. After all, something shown over and over again becomes mundane over time. The human mind is complicated and, therefore, we cannot justly believe that there is only one outcome of having public executions.

I dont understand the gain either. what is gained from taking away life.
If we kill someone we only lower ourselves to the level of a murderer.

We've also discussed the gains of capital punishment many times over in this very same thread as well as a couple other threads on the death penalty. Please review all posts before you bring up an argument.

If you take away the life of someone who has killed/murder/rape, you may very well be saving the lives of many other innocent lives. I'm sure you've heard stories about serial killers. They're called serial killers not because they've killed one person by accident, they've killed and killed and killed by intent. You really think such killers deserve to roam free and kill others? Or do you think that they should rot in jail for the rest of their lives?

If someone like that harmed my family, I would do anything, including using vigilante actions against them to gain justice. So then, why not let the law help me from committing murder of the person who murdered my family? It would be legal, and just.

[loljuliana]

yes, there should be a dealth penalty. the killer could have killed only one person, but that person is not the only one hurt. the family&friends are all hurt. it would be horrible for the family&friends to be hurt so bad while the killer sits peacefully in jail. it isnt fair. especially if the killer killed many people.

[XoJennaoX]

The death penalty is perfectly just in itself. It is how we use it, that is where conflict comes into play, that is where is can turn unjust.

If it says in the commandments "thou shall not kill" then the people commiting the crimes definitally don't believe in them, therefore they shall get the punishment that the bestowed on their victim.

This has been said A LOT so i'll attempt to possibly clear this up. This is the how it was translated in english...the true saying is "thou shall not commit murder"....two totally different concepts because now we have to classify "murder".... and many would agree capital punishment cannot be placed on such a level.

[sikdragon]

financially, the death penalty is a bad idea.
Morally, I don't think it's a good idea either.
Religiously, what happened to "Thou shalt not kill"? (That commandment has about as much influence as the separation of church and state)

Try reading the first five books of the bible and then make that statement again. The bible is very clear about the death penalty. You cannot use it to support any anti-death penalty argument.

[XoJennaoX]

^Exactly. Where does it say the death penalty is on the same level as murder in the bible? According to the bible death is not a punishment anyway. And in one's opinion, what does the bible purpose we do with serial killers, if not condemn them? "Thou shall not kill" will remain a vague translation, because here it is shown as being used circumstantialy within context of the bible.

The Old Testament law commanded the death penalty for various acts as shown in the Bible: murder (Exodus 21:12), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), bestiality (Exodus 22:19); adultery (Leviticus 20:10); homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13:5), prostitution and rape (Deuteronomy 22:4), and several other crimes. God often showed mercy when the death penalty was due, however, God was the one who instituted capital punishment: “Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6)

Another argument is that some people do not believe the bible is accurate in determining our morals in today's society, because morals have been proven historically contingent. Not every person takes the bible's literal meaning of "thou shall not kill", if they did then stabbing a person to death would be on the same level as using self defense to kill in the same situation, and i hope everyone agrees that shouldn't be. So please leave the bible out.

[rOckThISshYt]

financially, the death penalty is a bad idea.
Morally, I don't think it's a good idea either.
Religiously, what happened to "Thou shalt not kill"? (That commandment has about as much influence as the separation of church and state)

I definatly don't want to sound like a bitch when I say this. Most churches today are nothing like this, but the old ones since before the Middle Ages were like this:

The Church would brutily murder people (such as Christ) for disobeying them. They would troture them for speaking against them. They would banish and torture people for not paying taxes to them. They would have their own personal court and wouldn't listen to two sides and kill people without them being proved innocent or guilty. They had more power than the King in many time periods and many situations.

If you have not yet taken my point yet, the Bible was just a book they used to make themselves sound like good people. They never were. I'm not saying that some of them are now. Just that it was a cover-up.

Read a history book. That's where the proof lies.

In the Bible is states that all homosexuals and bisexuals are bad people or whatever blah blah blah (all bullshit). Because I'm bisexual, the Bible doesn't suport me. Why should I support it?

[sikdragon]

you've missed the entire point of the bible, besides, this topic is not about the Bible. It's about the death penatly. The Church and the Bible were also hardly ever in sync. Dont speak ignorantly of things you know nothing of.

The bible does support you. It just does not support your choices. Being gay or bisexual doesnt make you who you are, it makes you what you are.

[sadolakced acid]

you've missed the entire point of the bible, besides, this topic is not about the Bible. It's about the death penatly. The Church and the Bible were also hardly ever in sync. Dont speak ignorantly of things you know nothing of.

The bible does support you. It just does not support your choices. Being gay or bisexual doesnt make you who you are, it makes you what you are.

you are what you are.

[*CrackedRearView*]

The Church would brutily murder people (such as Christ) for disobeying them. They would troture them for speaking against them. They would banish and torture people for not paying taxes to them. They would have their own personal court and wouldn't listen to two sides and kill people without them being proved innocent or guilty. They had more power than the King in many time periods and many situations.

If you have not yet taken my point yet, the Bible was just a book they used to make themselves sound like good people. They never were. I'm not saying that some of them are now. Just that it was a cover-up.

Read a history book. That's where the proof lies.

You're one to label there, Ms. 'I'm bisexual and everyone persecutes me'. To label every church in history had distorted motives for the way business was handled is one oppressive, staunch label.

If you think that, 2005 years since Christ's death, that no historic clerical body served a morally decent purpose, you're more disillusioned than I originally thought.

[nerdxcore]

i don't think it's right. does this make sense to you...? you can't murder the murderers, right? i mean... we don't rape the rapist!

[ItzOnlySydney]

I'd say it's fair punishment. If you can take a life and think nothing of it, then I'd say we take your life and see how you'd like it.

my thoughts exactly; if you take another life we'll take yours

[Spirited Away]

i don't think it's right. does this make sense to you...? you can't murder the murderers, right? i mean... we don't rape the rapist!

There is a definitional, moral, difference between killing and murder.

Yes, capital punishment makes perfect sense to me when it's exercised with justice in mind.

[chocolateaficion...]

“The most sacred thing that we, each and every one of us, have is the right to life. When someone takes away that life, they should suffer the ultimate price and that’s the actual sacrifice of life.”

I agree with that.

[rOckThISshYt]

you've missed the entire point of the bible, besides, this topic is not about the Bible. It's about the death penatly. The Church and the Bible were also hardly ever in sync. Dont speak ignorantly of things you know nothing of.

The bible does support you. It just does not support your choices. Being gay or bisexual doesnt make you who you are, it makes you what you are.

Did I ever say that this topic was about the Bible? Nope.. I don't think so. The reason I braught that up is because that's many people's reasons for not agreeing with the death penalty.

First of all you are being totally hypocritical. You should not speak of what you do not know. I never chose to be bisexual. Did you chose to be straight? Some how I doubt you woke up one morning and decided, "Okay, I'm only going to like the opposite sex because I feel like it." That's not how it works. I mean, there are people who are "bi-curious" who choose to be that way. But bisexuality is its own sexuality in itself (obviously). It's not something you can choose or deny. That's just what it is.

Being bi or gay does not make me who I am nor what I am. It just happens to be one of the details in my life. Just like you being straight is not who you are or what you are. It is just another one of those things. I guess you could say it's a part of what I am. But not in general.. what I am.

You're one to label there, Ms. 'I'm bisexual and everyone persecutes me'. To label every church in history had distorted motives for the way business was handled is one oppressive, staunch label.

If you think that, 2005 years since Christ's death, that no historic clerical body served a morally decent purpose, you're more disillusioned than I originally thought.

When was the last time I said, "Everyone persecutes me" or "The whole world is out to get me" or any of that crap? Uhh... never from my memory. Do not put words in my mouth to make me look like a fool. And did I label every church in history? Once again... No. But all were run by the Pope who did the same thing. So, obviously, I do not know everything about every church in all of time and whatever. But they were all run by the same man who had the same motives in mind for each church.

And I'm sure that there was a Pope here and there way back when that had the right morals and motives. But never one that I've actually read about. So I'm sure they couldn't have done much for the church because I'm learning about it five days out of the week every day.

And, babes, you may think whatever you please. I really don't care. If I am truely disillusioned, than so be it. I have fun in my life and I have a good life over-all so why should I care so much about what other people think of me besides the one's I love and care about. And why should I really spend so much time defending a perfectly reasonable case that was perfectly reasonable the first time I said it?

The Old Testament law commanded the death penalty for various acts as shown in the Bible: murder (Exodus 21:12), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), bestiality (Exodus 22:19); adultery (Leviticus 20:10); homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13)

Oh.. Haha. Look at the last one I quoted! Now, I'm not actually a homosexual but I doubt that when they actually used that as a law, they didn't differ between the two.

[*CrackedRearView*]

When was the last time I said, "Everyone persecutes me" or "The whole world is out to get me" or any of that crap? Uhh... never from my memory. Do not put words in my mouth to make me look like a fool. And did I label every church in history? Once again... No. But all were run by the Pope who did the same thing. So, obviously, I do not know everything about every church in all of time and whatever. But they were all run by the same man who had the same motives in mind for each church.


And I'm sure that there was a Pope here and there way back when that had the right morals and motives. But never one that I've actually read about. So I'm sure they couldn't have done much for the church because I'm learning about it five days out of the week every day.

And, babes, you may think whatever you please. I really don't care. If I am truely disillusioned, than so be it. I have fun in my life and I have a good life over-all so why should I care so much about what other people think of me besides the one's I love and care about. And why should I really spend so much time defending a perfectly reasonable case that was perfectly reasonable the first time I said it?

Oh, I'm sorry, you just made an entire topic about the double standards you face. My mistake.

"And I'm sure that there was a Pope here and there way back when that had the right morals and motives. But never one that I've actually read about. So I'm sure they couldn't have done much for the church because I'm learning about it five days out of the week every day."

That's because the good ones go unmentioned. History books aren't interesting unless the Popes that tortured their subjects are the only ones mentioned. As a receiver of a high school education, I can guarantee you; half of the time, it's biased.

I'm not judging you as a person or personally attacking you (that's what you do to me, I wouldn't stoop that low). All I'm doing is invalidating your incorrect, presumptuous, unsubstantiated argument.

[XoJennaoX]

Sooo...back to the death penalty, anyone?

[sadolakced acid]

there is no moral reason for religious people that the death penalty is wrong.

to believe the death penalty is wrong requires the thought that death is always a punishment.

religious people think that if you're worthy, then it's a reward.

therfore, kill everyone, and they will be rewared or punished as needed.

and so, even if we do kill innocents, it's all in good fun.

[sikdragon]

"Judge lest ye be judged."

[XoJennaoX]

"Judge lest ye be judged."

Okay, the biblical quote "judge not, least ye be judged" cannot be used an anti-death penalty quote, since Jesus taught "judge with rightous judgement." It would therfore be contradicting, if that were the case. When we judge a person, it is usually always a negative action. That is why jesus insisted that we judge each other in the correct manner. I think the quote better makes sense - do not "judge", meaning do not wrongly accuse. This translation does not oppose the death penalty at all.

But like i said before it would be much better to leave bible quotes out of this discussion, since they can be fought both ways. Therefore just saying the quote itself does not prove one point or the other.

[sikdragon]

it wasnt anti death penalty it was anti-sadolakced acid and how he is judging all religous people.

I'm with you in the not using bible quotes. If you look up a few replies i have a statement agreeing with you.

[XoJennaoX]

it wasnt anti death penalty it was anti-sadolakced acid and how he is judging all religous people.

I'm with you in the not using bible quotes. If you look up a few replies i have a statement agreeing with you.

sorry about that.
I guess because you didn't quote him i misunderstood your intent of that phrase.

[Arsenic&OldLace]

I'll just copy and paste what I put in my Livejournal a while ago.

Alright, so this is something that's been on my mind ever since my French class discussion. Mrs. Ault was telling us about the French Revolution and how they switched over to using the guillotine in order to make death quicker and more humane. Then she told us how they stopped death penalties altogether in 1972.

I don't know why, but it just made me jealous. Also angry. About how we still have capital punishment in the US.

I dunno about you guys, but I think that it's COMPLETELY wrong to kill somebody, no matter what their crime(s) was.

If we wanted to make the person pay even more for what they did, wouldn't it be even more punishment to make them sit in jail for life? {Well, they'll be sitting in jail for a pretty long time, because I haven't heard of any death penalty that's taken less than ten years to pass through the judicial systems. With that in mind, I don't even think that capital punishment can be used as a deterent, because it's not like the person is going to be electricuted, or injected, or gassed right away.}

I don't know. I just think it's sick, how a country with SUCH high religious morals would say "We have the right to take your life for taking someone else's, when you don't even have the right to take your own."

It's like the Hammurabi code. "An eye for an eye." That set of laws is so f**king outdated and it sickens me that it happens here.

Plus after ten, fifteen years, the criminal could be a completely changed person..don't you think? And then they could finally get killed for something they did ten or fifteen years before, when the general public won't even recognize them when they get fried on TV.

Yeah, I'm sure the victim's family would be glad to see that they have been put to justice, but I don't know. If someone came and took my child's life, or someone I know, after ten years I'd let them sit in jail. I wouldn't take pleasure in seeing them killed, no matter how painless it might look.

Eh. [ off of soap box ] So..what do you guys think? Someone reply. ^^

I was thinking about it, and I realize that I'm a hypocrite. I say that because I'm pro-choice, depending on the circumstances. I guess after this huge long entry I'm not for abortion as much as I thought I was. It really all depends on the situation. But that's for another debate. =P

<3 Francesca

[Spirited Away]

Eh. [ off of soap box ] So..what do you guys think? Someone reply. ^^

Your opinions have already been replied to in previous posts...

For example, you said "I don't know. I just think it's sick, how a country with SUCH high religious morals would say "We have the right to take your life for taking someone else's, when you don't even have the right to take your own."

However, if you mean "highly religious" Christian morals, then this is what a Christian has to say about it:

Ok going from the bible point of view. I do not believe it is playing God. He gave us rules to follow and said to follow the government and if you don't you will be punished by the laws. Here it is Romans 13

1Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God. 2So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow. 3For the authorities do not frighten people who are doing right, but they frighten those who do wrong. So do what they say, and you will get along well. 4The authorities are sent by God to help you. But if you are doing something wrong, of course you should be afraid, for you will be punished. The authorities are established by God for that very purpose, to punish those who do wrong. 5So you must obey the government for two reasons: to keep from being punished and to keep a clear conscience

If you don't mean Christian's morality, then let me know. Others have said plenty about this already...


Sorry, I don't feel like offering a new respond, but I wanted to let you know that we've debated some, if not all, of what you have to say before.

[*CrackedRearView*]

Okay, let's all try and point out problems in my system then, because there are none.

The cost of the drugs used in lethal injections (pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride) is only $86.08, according to the Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice.

We eliminate parole for death row inmates and excessively violent (or repeat) offenders, and voila! No more costly appeals, no more costly capital punishment system.

Ding, ding! Justice is served.