Death, why should my tax dollars go to feed a murderer for life, when they could be better spent for those who need it? In addition to the whole lack of respect for life thing blah blah blah.
Death, why should my tax dollars go to feed a murderer for life, when they could be better spent for those who need it? In addition to the whole lack of respect for life thing blah blah blah.
I think the prisoner should work to earn his keep in the prison. It's only fair.
Condition: Each comment bookended by good-natured insults.
The belief that some individuals believe that murder (and hence, sin, as it's called by most people), rape, and so on, are offenses that automatically render's the offender's rights null is absurd, and belies the teachings of Jesus (which is, along with the Greco-Roman judicial model, the basis of a large portion of western society).
lol you nub
The Son of God is the Word, Denver; He is the Logos. Who do you think demanded an eye for an eye? Who insisted that "whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed"? He did.
The problem many seem to have here is that they assume forgiveness includes an abrogration of punishment, but this is not the case at all. Forgiveness merely indicates the cessation of our resentment of the person's crime. We are to hate the sin and love the sinner, but this doesn't mean we let the sinner off the hook. That's not what love means.
And lest you think that the idea of forgiveness is some new conceit of Jesus' doing, you should look into Lev. 19:18.
It is also erroneous to cite the example of the aborted stoning of the adulterous woman or any of Jesus' commentary on the subject of resisting evil or vengeance as reasons against capital punishment. The former is an example of Him turning the tables on the Pharisees who had tried to trick Him into committing sedition, while the latter is in the context of personal relationships, not affairs of state (as is Lev. 19:18 before Him).
And, finally, what does the Greco-Roman judicial model say about the death penalty?
Thanks for coming out, pepito.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
As is the literature glorifying vengeance, from Beowulf and the Nibelungenlied all the way down to Kill Bill.
The plot of Hamlet is far too complex to be attached to a simple "vengeance is bad" moral. Vengeance is present in the play, no question - but is it the cause of the court at Elsinore's downfall? Or is it merely one strand in a web of events, circumstances and emotions that inevitably drive the play towards its conclusion, and make it a true tragedy?
And to jump Shakespeare tragedies, see Macbeth. The vengeance of Macduff is pretty straightforwardly heroic, in the aforementioned grand Germanic tradition.
Nice going there, egghead.
I love you. You're awesome. Never change.
You credible swine!
==
I voted death. String him up at city hall and let the birds pick him clean.
"Ye hath heard that it has been said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth;
but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also"
(Matthew 5:39)
Note that the three mentions I can find of eye for an eye are all old testiment; Ex21:24, lev24:20 and Deu 19:20. Not new testament anywhere.
Luk 6:37Judgenot, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
Now, I know you feel you have answered the first one. I deny you this answer. Sorry, but Its the words; jesus says 'don't go an eye for an eye. Don't give in to evil yourself; turn the other cheek'. Your alternate reading is a bit horrible.
And NO ONE here is suggesting we do not punish the sinner for their sins. No one is saying that we take charles manson, give him 50 bucks and put him on a bus.
What we are saying is that as individuals we are NOT fit judges for even the worst man. If god exists, only god can really judge these people, and god will make that judgement at the appropriate time. We need not hasten them to their fate.
The death penalty is nothing but revenge. It does not fix the crime; it does not bring life to the dead. Killing someone extra just makes someone extra dead. Even if they are the murderer, how does this help?
The death penalty gives too great a risk of killing an innocent man. And it costs more (magemoth: keeping someone in prison for life is *cheaper*)
Death. Murder 1 should automatically get you the death penalty, IMO. A person like this isn't going to be rehabilitated.
Agreed. There are some types of criminal personalities that you just can't rehabilitate, and should be treated like rabid animals. Humanely, but decisively. At this point it's no longer an issue of 'turn the other cheek' as it is a matter of public safety.
If people want to debate whether Christianity allows for the death penalty or not, please start a new thread. I think it is an interesting enough subject to support it's own thread. After conversing at some length with Furor about gay marriage and reading his biblical defenses, I have pretty much come to the conclusion, that the bible is a large enough book, with the old, and new testaments, that a person could take a reasonable position on just about anything and find some passage or passages that will support his opinion.
However I digress. Back on subject I find it is interesting the number of folks who would use punishment as a form of societal vengeance. I imagine people empathize with the victim or family of victim and feel they would want the perpetrator to suffer.
This line of thinking is so logical, but I have my doubts about its intended results. I think the idea of using revenge as a message or lesson is one that I have supported in much of my life. As a child, if my sister did something that made me angry I would exact retribution in order to teach her a lesson not to do it again. Maybe this idea pans out for some, but because both my sister and I are strong willed people it mostly led to an escalation of conflict. If we didn't love each other deep down, I think eventually we would have killed each other.
That is a small-scale example, but I think that it is the core of what ails our planet in these troubled times. The desire to use vengeance to send a message is what motivates a terrorist to bomb a bus, it is what motivates a president to send his armies to route out evil in other nations, it is what keeps two sides from finding a common ground.
So unless one side is going to have utter, and unequivocal victory, I think it is not in a person’s, a society’s, or a nation’s best interest to use violence, torture, or vengeful retribution as a form of communication.
Even though my baser instincts appeal to such vengeful notions, I have serious doubts about the effectiveness of this rather pervasive philosophy.
*sigh* Why is the death penalty inhumane when life in prison isn't? What are your criteria for distinguishing the humane from the inhumane?
Part 1: The death penalty is inhumane because it's not only cruel, it isn't justice. I've always thought death as a means of escape, a means to travel on the next part of life. By giving that to a criminal who has committed horrifying crimes (such as this one), you're only giving them the statisfaction of a quick release into death. Life in prison isn't inhumane as it allows for the criminal to live, to reflect on why the hell he did all of that horrific nonsense. It also gives that person a chance to try again (heh, I'm sounding like a Christian) at life and find some sort of meaning.
Part 2: My criteria for humane and inhumane are a bit strange. Humane punishment is something that does not interfere with the life and liberty of the person; I don't paticularly like torture, the use of the death penalty, or anything that could threaten one's life. Inhumane is doing something that would snuff the survival of the person.
From the above criteria, this is why I chose life in isolation in prison. We're keeping the person alive, yet they're forgotten and will eventually rot away in anonomity. The worst thing you can humanely do to a human being is to forget about them completely, hence, which is what I would do to this criminal.
EDIT: It's been a long while since I've attended church, but didn't Jesus say "turn the other cheek," and Moses, "an eye for an eye?"
DOUBLE EDIT:
Quote from Prizm »
There, you made me go qualify my statement . 1 should be- for many people, the greatest possible punishment is death.
Is it? I've always thought suffering is the greatest possible punishment. In many, many, many religions, death is a release into the next otherworldly life. Therefore, isn't death one of the best things you can do to someone?
Granted, my logic is a bit flawed. After all, we have to assume there is an otherworldly life we live after this one. But look at the Christian myrtrs in Rome and the Chinese Gua Fong myrtrs. Isn't death to them better then living a life of torture?
Part 1: The death penalty is inhumane because it's not only cruel, it isn't justice.
Why is it cruel? And why is locking a man up in a fortress full of 300-pound, very horny thugs not?
Quote from Lone Warrior »
I've always thought death as a means of escape, a means to travel on the next part of life. By giving that to a criminal who has committed horrifying crimes (such as this one), you're only giving them the statisfaction of a quick release into death.
So, your objection to the death penalty is twofold: it's too harsh and it isn't harsh enough.
Quote from Lone Warrior »
Life in prison isn't inhumane as it allows for the criminal to live, to reflect on why the hell he did all of that horrific nonsense. It also gives that person a chance to try again (heh, I'm sounding like a Christian) at life and find some sort of meaning.
Part 2: My criteria for humane and inhumane are a bit strange. Humane punishment is something that does not interfere with the life and liberty of the person; I don't paticularly like torture, the use of the death penalty, or anything that could threaten one's life.
Prison is a pretty effective interference with the liberty of the person, don't you think?
Quote from Lone Warrior »
Inhumane is doing something that would snuff the survival of the person.
From the above criteria, this is why I chose life in isolation in prison. We're keeping the person alive, yet they're forgotten and will eventually rot away in anonomity. The worst thing you can humanely do to a human being is to forget about them completely, hence, which is what I would do to this criminal.
It must be differences in definition, but I wouldn't call oubliettes humane.
Quote from Lone Warrior »
DOUBLE EDIT:
Is it? I've always thought suffering is the greatest possible punishment. In many, many, many religions, death is a release into the next otherworldly life. Therefore, isn't death one of the best things you can do to someone?
Granted, my logic is a bit flawed. After all, we have to assume there is an otherworldly life we live after this one. But look at the Christian myrtrs in Rome and the Chinese Gua Fong myrtrs. Isn't death to them better then living a life of torture?
To some, yes. Criminals tend to be rather worldly, though. And you argued against torture, remember?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
**Before beginning, a note to erikcu. If enough people are interested, I'm willing to start a more in-depth thread with some theses outlined in greater detail. As it's just Verbal and I at the moment, however, I'll keep it here.
==
Condition: Each point summarized with an heroic couplet.
Quote from Verbal »
Furor:
And who said
"Ye hath heard that it has been said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth;
but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also"
(Matthew 5:39)
This passage concerns personal conduct in the field of insult. "Turn to him the other also" is not an invitation for further abuse, but an indication that you have taken the high ground by refusing to return his insult, as manifested by your turning away rather than striking back. If you can suggest any reason (textual, contextual, or otherwise; that is, within the text itself or within the context of Christ) that this is meant to refer to the state's dispensation of justice, I would be glad to hear it. Because, you see, reading Matthew 5, I see an ideal code of personal conduct, but nothing to suggest modes of governance.
When thou art curs'd, your vengeance God reproves;
When thou art slain, th' avenging act behooves.
Note that the three mentions I can find of eye for an eye are all old testiment; Ex21:24, lev24:20 and Deu 19:20. Not new testament anywhere.
What, I am moved to ask, does this matter? The "Old Testament" and the "New Testament" are distinct only in that their boundary marks the coming of the Christ. Though it is easy to believe otherwise, Jesus does not preach anything particularly different from what you can find in the Old Testament. A stumbling block for many interpreters of His sermons is His tendency to focus primarily on the personal affairs of people rather than the public affairs of the state. It is easy to see why a "difference" in ideas could be perceived.
The Law not to abolish, but fulfill;
Man's life the action, and his heart the will.
Besides, check Matt. 5:21-22. He reiterates the condemnation of murderers ("You shall not murder, and whoever murders shall be liable to judgement"), but does not deny it. He does not lessen it. He intensifies it by extending this danger to those who would hate their brothers or call them fools!
The murderers all burn in earthly pyres,
And join the bitter hateful in Hell's fires.
Just look at the structure of His sermon. He uses the same "you have heard" formula for a number of sinful behaviours. You ask us to believe that He is condemning the command of "an eye for an eye;" is He also condemning "thou shalt not commit adultery?" "Thou shalt not swear falsely?" "Thou shalt not kill?" The only one He condemns is done explicitly, and by way of expansion (I speak of the expansion of the command to love one's neighbour and hate one's enemy to love one's neighbour and one's enemy). The use of "you have heard" is significant in and of itself as well, for it is an admonition. These men and women know what they're supposed to be doing, but are lackluster.
With beggars spiteful, and the poor aloof,
Thought themselves righteous; reap'd the Christ's reproof.
Luk 6:37Judgenot, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
Now, I know you feel you have answered the first one. I deny you this answer. Sorry, but Its the words; jesus says 'don't go an eye for an eye. Don't give in to evil yourself; turn the other cheek'. Your alternate reading is a bit horrible.
My "alternate read" is nothing of the sort, for it is neither alternate nor horrible. I levy the charge of alternativism upon anyone who would attempt to force state politics into a protocol of personal character.
What man does unto man is plain enough;
The state unto its people, sterner stuff.
As to Matt. 7:1 and Luke 6:37, I do not particularly grasp your point.
In the former (and this is demonstrated clearly by reading it, as one is supposed to, with the next four verses), we are reminded to judge only in righteousness, disdaining hypocrisy. The latter verse is a similarly perplexing inclusion, as a reading of it, properly prefaced by the statement of 6:31 ("And as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them"), and the examples of a perversion of this idea in Luke 6:32 onward, demonstrates that it is an exhortation to selflessness. 6:32-34 describe the folly of giving only to those who have given to you, loving only those who have loved you, repaying only those who have repayed you; for indeed, does not the sinner do as much? Jesus turns the tables at 6:35, insisting that the righteous man acts rather than reacts. Love those who do not love you! Give without expecting return! Do good without hope of recognition! 6:37-38 is a poetic summary of this ideal, and is quite beautiful:
"Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For the measure you give will be the measure you get back."
Act not for pleasure, fame, nor man's applause,
But prosper as a keeper of God's laws.
See a special note about this at the end.
And NO ONE here is suggesting we do not punish the sinner for their sins. No one is saying that we take charles manson, give him 50 bucks and put him on a bus.
What we are saying is that as individuals we are NOT fit judges for even the worst man. If god exists, only god can really judge these people, and god will make that judgement at the appropriate time. We need not hasten them to their fate.
God has pronounced His judgement upon the murderer:
"If anyone murders a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the evidence of witnesses; but no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness. Moreover, you shall accept no ransom for him who is guilty of death; but he shall be put to death. You shall not thus pollute the land in which you live; for blood pollutes the land, and no expiation can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of him who shed it. You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell."
The darkest crime occurs when man would slay,
A crime no trial or weeping can repay.
The death penalty is nothing but revenge. It does not fix the crime; it does not bring life to the dead. Killing someone extra just makes someone extra dead. Even if they are the murderer, how does this help?
The death penalty gives too great a risk of killing an innocent man. And it costs more (magemoth: keeping someone in prison for life is *cheaper*)
Given that nothing can fix the crime, I am moved to wonder just why any course of action could be denounced on this basis. As to the folly of "killing yet another person," is it "people dying" that's really the problem of murder? People die all the time for various and diuers reasons, both with and without the approval of others. That the death penalty gives too great a risk of killing an innocent man is, to my mind, the most powerful argument against it. It is not enough to sway me, but I respect the elegance of it. Finally, executions are only so expensive because we put so much damn effort into them now. I'm given to understand that the cost of a single bullet is something less than a dollar, for example; why has this avenue been closed? How much would twenty feet of rope and some solid timber set the state back?
All men shall die, but some not as they ought;
At worst, the chair; at best, a single shot.
**Note for Verbal:
What does Jesus Christ mean when He says the following:
1. "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household."
2. "But as for those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Then loom'd his streaming majesty From out that wine-dark fog, And spake he unto all our crew: "Go forth, and read my blog."
Why is it cruel? And why is locking a man up in a fortress full of 300-pound, very horny thugs not?
Because humans have never excercised good judgement when given the option of death. After all, look at the current role of science in exonerating criminals on death row. Clearly, we do put innocent people in death row. Why should there even be an option of death if we don't get it right most of the time?
So, your objection to the death penalty is twofold: it's too harsh and it isn't harsh enough.
Yes. It's a bit strange twist of doublethink, which I must confess to doing. Killing is people is inhumane, yet by killing them, they get the release of death. Knowing what you do know, would you have let the Christian myrtrs in Rome die?
Prison is a pretty effective interference with the liberty of the person, don't you think?
Not really. Most prisons are now geared to helping the inmates prepare for life outside of prison. Prison isn't simply a holding place for convicts anymore, it is another world for people to thrive in. Also, considering some who enter there are destitute and don't eat regularly, they are actually getting a better life behind bars then out.
It must be differences in definition, but I wouldn't call oubliettes humane.
Why not? As long as their living, right? After all, the word stemmed from it in french is "to forget".
What does Jesus Christ mean when He says the following:
1. "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household."
2. "But as for those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me."
And here I thought Jesus wanted me to love everyone.
Oh well, now that I know he only wants me to follow his example, and his example states I don't have to love everyone, I can offer a valid reason why George W. Bush is loved by Christ.
And here I thought Jesus wanted me to love everyone.
Supposedly Jesus does love everyone. I guess it could be true, but I have a hard time imagining that the compassionate Jesus and the cruel god of the OT are one and the same. Infact, I'd be tempted to say they are opposites. Lucifer/Satan, etc. isn't nearly as vicious as Yaweh in the OT.
I could answer passage #1, but Furor intended it specifically for Verbal so I'll give him a shot first.
#2 seems similar, so I could probably answer that as well.
Oh well, now that I know he only wants me to follow his example, and his example states I don't have to love everyone, I can offer a valid reason why George W. Bush is loved by Christ.
The President also speaks to Christ. Oddly enough, everyone is getting a different message from the same being.
The President also speaks to Christ. Oddly enough, everyone is getting a different message from the same being.
I've already aired my grievance on this:
How can any Christian Conservative say that President Bush is a man of Christ?
The actions of his administration and him are, in many cases, the direct antithesis of the picture of Jesus that we get from the gospel.
Besides, why Christians would want to endorse any politician is beyond me; most of them are corrupt as hell, and the higher on the chain you get, the more corrupt you're likely to be.
Huzzah! Comes the Bush-bashing! Seriously, people, there are enough threads already about the guy. Not everything in life revolves around the President of the United States.
Quote from Lone Warrior »
Because humans have never excercised good judgement when given the option of death. After all, look at the current role of science in exonerating criminals on death row. Clearly, we do put innocent people in death row. Why should there even be an option of death if we don't get it right most of the time?
What is so special about the death penalty here? We also put innocent people in prison, and force innocent people to pay fines. Why should there even be these options if we don't get it right most of the time?
Perhaps because an imperfect and fallible system of justice is better than no system at all. And perhaps because you've given no support for the loaded statement that we "don't get it right most of the time."
Quote from Lone Warrior »
Yes. It's a bit strange twist of doublethink, which I must confess to doing. Killing is people is inhumane, yet by killing them, they get the release of death. Knowing what you do know, would you have let the Christian myrtrs in Rome die?
No. I don't consider being mildly annoying to be worthy of death. But if I did, then yes, I'd kill them. It gets them out of my hair, so who cares if they want it? Besides, there's no guarantee that they're right; I could be sending them to a nasty surprise.
Quote from Lone Warrior »
Not really. Most prisons are now geared to helping the inmates prepare for life outside of prison.
Which is worth jack-squat to those in for life without parole.
Quote from Lone Warrior »
Prison isn't simply a holding place for convicts anymore, it is another world for people to thrive in. Also, considering some who enter there are destitute and don't eat regularly, they are actually getting a better life behind bars then out.
And all this is a good thing?
Quote from Lone Warrior »
Why not? As long as their living, right? After all, the word stemmed from it in french is "to forget".
Yes, I'm quite aware of the etymology; are you aware of the actual practice? Imagine, if you will, a tiny (sometimes only coffin-sized) pitch-black cell into which food and water is thrown only when the guards have the presence of mind to remember it, and you, are there (which, since the entire point of the oubliette is to forget about it, is seldom). It's like being buried alive, only it lasts far, far longer because you don't (usually) suffocate. But as long as you're living, right? At least they didn't give you a quick and painless death.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Is it? I've always thought suffering is the greatest possible punishment. In many, many, many religions, death is a release into the next otherworldly life. Therefore, isn't death one of the best things you can do to someone?
By the same token, isn't all of life suffering? Don't we all, every human being ever to exist on this planet, suffer each day of our wretched existences? Would you prefer the quiet release of death to the painstaking drudge of everyday life?
Maybe. But most of us wouldn't.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from ljossberir »
Prizm is the key to the greatness of the US!
Quote from Phyrexian »
If hefner was a rich, gay, playboy and had hot steamy sex with hot guys would you choose him? Of course not, mainly because im a straight male and find that stuff gross.
Stand by my side should I fight
Strengthen my steel should I falter
Smite my back should I flee
Save my soul should I fall
Official Recovering World of Warcraft Addict of The Ivory Tower
Huzzah! Comes the Bush-bashing! Seriously, people, there are enough threads already about the guy. Not everything in life revolves around the President of the United States.
Acknowledging it helps it.
You wouldn't say a show that has a high rating which you think should have low rating would be one you would watch, correct?
Or, to put more simply: When you complain about something that is out of place, you draw attention to it. Just like me responding to what you said.
Which will, in all likelihood, lead to a response from you.
look the main problem is if we were to torture him we would be no better, and that doesnt work. Yes he does deserve bad things tough so why dont we let him in a room with chares manson or someone like that and just let what happens happen there for we could all just claim it was a dispute versus cell mates that went wrong.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My First Major Magic Event Was Regonals And My Mono Green Aggro Won 8-1-1
hers one for you wahy not rehabilite them in to armed forces? they know how to kill already so why not make them more eficcent at it and they can serve there sententence and every time they complet a mission in one peice they get a couple of years tken off for not only good behavior but staying alive.
Or if they do somthing that would be considerd high casulty under normal cicumstances and come back. they get pardoned
hers one for you wahy not rehabilite them in to armed forces? they know how to kill already so why not make them more eficcent at it and they can serve there sententence and every time they complet a mission in one peice they get a couple of years tken off for not only good behavior but staying alive.
Or if they do somthing that would be considerd high casulty under normal cicumstances and come back. they get pardoned
Sounds like you have been watching too many XXX DVDs (Vin Deisel XXX not porn XXX). Problem with this idea is that no one in that guy's troup is going to want to rely on him. If anyone knew what he did, he would basically be killed in training by some horrible unfortunate accident with rope, razers, bludgens, an army jeep, and 40 miles of gravel road.
That is like voting for death by torture I think.
PS. probably should delete the double post, before you get warned for spam (because stock advice is not a little off topic, it is completely unrelated) and because double posting is very frowned upon ( I know,because I have been warned for it)
actualy its a movie OLDER than tripple-x called "the dirty dozen" some cons were looking for a way out the fed gove wanted troops during WW2.
read up on it better yet watch it it's pretty decent fo old school
and if you want to get technical in the movie vin deisels caracter was NOT a convicted felon
hers one for you wahy not rehabilite them in to armed forces? they know how to kill already so why not make them more eficcent at it and they can serve there sententence and every time they complet a mission in one peice they get a couple of years tken off for not only good behavior but staying alive.
I don't like the idea of giving people who have a history of murder weapons training.
Lesser crimes, perhaps. But not anyone who would otherwise be sentenced to death.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from ljossberir »
Prizm is the key to the greatness of the US!
Quote from Phyrexian »
If hefner was a rich, gay, playboy and had hot steamy sex with hot guys would you choose him? Of course not, mainly because im a straight male and find that stuff gross.
Stand by my side should I fight
Strengthen my steel should I falter
Smite my back should I flee
Save my soul should I fall
Official Recovering World of Warcraft Addict of The Ivory Tower
There are two reasons why I like the death penalty:
1) Removing the subject from society altogether.
2) Retribution.
The second point is clearly the reason why the death penalty should exist as a punishment over and above life imprisonment. It would be comforting for me to know that if one of my family members/friends is killed by a deranged maniac, that mother****er is going to get killed. Screw the two wrongs don't make a right crap, every family that has had a loved one taken by a murderer wants to see that sucker gassed (or worse). Take for example the recent London bombings; I'm sure everyone in London would love to see the people responsible for that atrocity die in an excruciating manner. Or, here is a better solution: take the guy from Ohio and put him into the general population, no special privilages, and see how long he lasts. People in jail HATE people like him, and will go out of their way to "get" him.
EDIT: Also, Edgecrusher, I would like to see the study/report where your most recent info was taken from. It seems a little..... fishy to me.
Movies and entertainment != a good source for ideas about policy. Even if what edgecrusher says is true (and I too would like to see that study) and most of those in the army are clinically psycho, that's still not a good reason for letting them associate with fellow clinical psychos with experience. In addition to all the concerns about giving them weapons and them just deserting and the like. Bad idea all around.
Quote from Denver »
Have fun
I do so try!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think the prisoner should work to earn his keep in the prison. It's only fair.
lol you nub
The Son of God is the Word, Denver; He is the Logos. Who do you think demanded an eye for an eye? Who insisted that "whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed"? He did.
The problem many seem to have here is that they assume forgiveness includes an abrogration of punishment, but this is not the case at all. Forgiveness merely indicates the cessation of our resentment of the person's crime. We are to hate the sin and love the sinner, but this doesn't mean we let the sinner off the hook. That's not what love means.
And lest you think that the idea of forgiveness is some new conceit of Jesus' doing, you should look into Lev. 19:18.
It is also erroneous to cite the example of the aborted stoning of the adulterous woman or any of Jesus' commentary on the subject of resisting evil or vengeance as reasons against capital punishment. The former is an example of Him turning the tables on the Pharisees who had tried to trick Him into committing sedition, while the latter is in the context of personal relationships, not affairs of state (as is Lev. 19:18 before Him).
And, finally, what does the Greco-Roman judicial model say about the death penalty?
Thanks for coming out, pepito.
Nice going there, egghead.
I love you. You're awesome. Never change.
You credible swine!
==
I voted death. String him up at city hall and let the birds pick him clean.
From out that wine-dark fog,
And spake he unto all our crew:
"Go forth, and read my blog."
And who said
"Ye hath heard that it has been said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth;
but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also"
(Matthew 5:39)
Note that the three mentions I can find of eye for an eye are all old testiment; Ex21:24, lev24:20 and Deu 19:20. Not new testament anywhere.
And who said:
Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Luk 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
Now, I know you feel you have answered the first one. I deny you this answer. Sorry, but Its the words; jesus says 'don't go an eye for an eye. Don't give in to evil yourself; turn the other cheek'. Your alternate reading is a bit horrible.
And NO ONE here is suggesting we do not punish the sinner for their sins. No one is saying that we take charles manson, give him 50 bucks and put him on a bus.
What we are saying is that as individuals we are NOT fit judges for even the worst man. If god exists, only god can really judge these people, and god will make that judgement at the appropriate time. We need not hasten them to their fate.
The death penalty is nothing but revenge. It does not fix the crime; it does not bring life to the dead. Killing someone extra just makes someone extra dead. Even if they are the murderer, how does this help?
The death penalty gives too great a risk of killing an innocent man. And it costs more (magemoth: keeping someone in prison for life is *cheaper*)
Then let the punishment fit the crime.
However I digress. Back on subject I find it is interesting the number of folks who would use punishment as a form of societal vengeance. I imagine people empathize with the victim or family of victim and feel they would want the perpetrator to suffer.
This line of thinking is so logical, but I have my doubts about its intended results. I think the idea of using revenge as a message or lesson is one that I have supported in much of my life. As a child, if my sister did something that made me angry I would exact retribution in order to teach her a lesson not to do it again. Maybe this idea pans out for some, but because both my sister and I are strong willed people it mostly led to an escalation of conflict. If we didn't love each other deep down, I think eventually we would have killed each other.
That is a small-scale example, but I think that it is the core of what ails our planet in these troubled times. The desire to use vengeance to send a message is what motivates a terrorist to bomb a bus, it is what motivates a president to send his armies to route out evil in other nations, it is what keeps two sides from finding a common ground.
So unless one side is going to have utter, and unequivocal victory, I think it is not in a person’s, a society’s, or a nation’s best interest to use violence, torture, or vengeful retribution as a form of communication.
Even though my baser instincts appeal to such vengeful notions, I have serious doubts about the effectiveness of this rather pervasive philosophy.
Part 1: The death penalty is inhumane because it's not only cruel, it isn't justice. I've always thought death as a means of escape, a means to travel on the next part of life. By giving that to a criminal who has committed horrifying crimes (such as this one), you're only giving them the statisfaction of a quick release into death. Life in prison isn't inhumane as it allows for the criminal to live, to reflect on why the hell he did all of that horrific nonsense. It also gives that person a chance to try again (heh, I'm sounding like a Christian) at life and find some sort of meaning.
Part 2: My criteria for humane and inhumane are a bit strange. Humane punishment is something that does not interfere with the life and liberty of the person; I don't paticularly like torture, the use of the death penalty, or anything that could threaten one's life. Inhumane is doing something that would snuff the survival of the person.
From the above criteria, this is why I chose life in isolation in prison. We're keeping the person alive, yet they're forgotten and will eventually rot away in anonomity. The worst thing you can humanely do to a human being is to forget about them completely, hence, which is what I would do to this criminal.
EDIT: It's been a long while since I've attended church, but didn't Jesus say "turn the other cheek," and Moses, "an eye for an eye?"
DOUBLE EDIT:
Is it? I've always thought suffering is the greatest possible punishment. In many, many, many religions, death is a release into the next otherworldly life. Therefore, isn't death one of the best things you can do to someone?
Granted, my logic is a bit flawed. After all, we have to assume there is an otherworldly life we live after this one. But look at the Christian myrtrs in Rome and the Chinese Gua Fong myrtrs. Isn't death to them better then living a life of torture?
Sigg'd.
Why is it cruel? And why is locking a man up in a fortress full of 300-pound, very horny thugs not?
So, your objection to the death penalty is twofold: it's too harsh and it isn't harsh enough.
Punishment != rehabilitation. Punishment = punishment.
Prison is a pretty effective interference with the liberty of the person, don't you think?
It must be differences in definition, but I wouldn't call oubliettes humane.
To some, yes. Criminals tend to be rather worldly, though. And you argued against torture, remember?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
==
Condition: Each point summarized with an heroic couplet.
This passage concerns personal conduct in the field of insult. "Turn to him the other also" is not an invitation for further abuse, but an indication that you have taken the high ground by refusing to return his insult, as manifested by your turning away rather than striking back. If you can suggest any reason (textual, contextual, or otherwise; that is, within the text itself or within the context of Christ) that this is meant to refer to the state's dispensation of justice, I would be glad to hear it. Because, you see, reading Matthew 5, I see an ideal code of personal conduct, but nothing to suggest modes of governance.
When thou art curs'd, your vengeance God reproves;
When thou art slain, th' avenging act behooves.
What, I am moved to ask, does this matter? The "Old Testament" and the "New Testament" are distinct only in that their boundary marks the coming of the Christ. Though it is easy to believe otherwise, Jesus does not preach anything particularly different from what you can find in the Old Testament. A stumbling block for many interpreters of His sermons is His tendency to focus primarily on the personal affairs of people rather than the public affairs of the state. It is easy to see why a "difference" in ideas could be perceived.
The Law not to abolish, but fulfill;
Man's life the action, and his heart the will.
Besides, check Matt. 5:21-22. He reiterates the condemnation of murderers ("You shall not murder, and whoever murders shall be liable to judgement"), but does not deny it. He does not lessen it. He intensifies it by extending this danger to those who would hate their brothers or call them fools!
The murderers all burn in earthly pyres,
And join the bitter hateful in Hell's fires.
Just look at the structure of His sermon. He uses the same "you have heard" formula for a number of sinful behaviours. You ask us to believe that He is condemning the command of "an eye for an eye;" is He also condemning "thou shalt not commit adultery?" "Thou shalt not swear falsely?" "Thou shalt not kill?" The only one He condemns is done explicitly, and by way of expansion (I speak of the expansion of the command to love one's neighbour and hate one's enemy to love one's neighbour and one's enemy). The use of "you have heard" is significant in and of itself as well, for it is an admonition. These men and women know what they're supposed to be doing, but are lackluster.
With beggars spiteful, and the poor aloof,
Thought themselves righteous; reap'd the Christ's reproof.
My "alternate read" is nothing of the sort, for it is neither alternate nor horrible. I levy the charge of alternativism upon anyone who would attempt to force state politics into a protocol of personal character.
What man does unto man is plain enough;
The state unto its people, sterner stuff.
As to Matt. 7:1 and Luke 6:37, I do not particularly grasp your point.
In the former (and this is demonstrated clearly by reading it, as one is supposed to, with the next four verses), we are reminded to judge only in righteousness, disdaining hypocrisy. The latter verse is a similarly perplexing inclusion, as a reading of it, properly prefaced by the statement of 6:31 ("And as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them"), and the examples of a perversion of this idea in Luke 6:32 onward, demonstrates that it is an exhortation to selflessness. 6:32-34 describe the folly of giving only to those who have given to you, loving only those who have loved you, repaying only those who have repayed you; for indeed, does not the sinner do as much? Jesus turns the tables at 6:35, insisting that the righteous man acts rather than reacts. Love those who do not love you! Give without expecting return! Do good without hope of recognition! 6:37-38 is a poetic summary of this ideal, and is quite beautiful:
"Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For the measure you give will be the measure you get back."
Act not for pleasure, fame, nor man's applause,
But prosper as a keeper of God's laws.
See a special note about this at the end.
God has pronounced His judgement upon the murderer:
"If anyone murders a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the evidence of witnesses; but no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness. Moreover, you shall accept no ransom for him who is guilty of death; but he shall be put to death. You shall not thus pollute the land in which you live; for blood pollutes the land, and no expiation can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of him who shed it. You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell."
The darkest crime occurs when man would slay,
A crime no trial or weeping can repay.
Given that nothing can fix the crime, I am moved to wonder just why any course of action could be denounced on this basis. As to the folly of "killing yet another person," is it "people dying" that's really the problem of murder? People die all the time for various and diuers reasons, both with and without the approval of others. That the death penalty gives too great a risk of killing an innocent man is, to my mind, the most powerful argument against it. It is not enough to sway me, but I respect the elegance of it. Finally, executions are only so expensive because we put so much damn effort into them now. I'm given to understand that the cost of a single bullet is something less than a dollar, for example; why has this avenue been closed? How much would twenty feet of rope and some solid timber set the state back?
All men shall die, but some not as they ought;
At worst, the chair; at best, a single shot.
**Note for Verbal:
What does Jesus Christ mean when He says the following:
1. "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household."
2. "But as for those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me."
From out that wine-dark fog,
And spake he unto all our crew:
"Go forth, and read my blog."
Because humans have never excercised good judgement when given the option of death. After all, look at the current role of science in exonerating criminals on death row. Clearly, we do put innocent people in death row. Why should there even be an option of death if we don't get it right most of the time?
Yes. It's a bit strange twist of doublethink, which I must confess to doing. Killing is people is inhumane, yet by killing them, they get the release of death. Knowing what you do know, would you have let the Christian myrtrs in Rome die?
Not really. Most prisons are now geared to helping the inmates prepare for life outside of prison. Prison isn't simply a holding place for convicts anymore, it is another world for people to thrive in. Also, considering some who enter there are destitute and don't eat regularly, they are actually getting a better life behind bars then out.
Why not? As long as their living, right? After all, the word stemmed from it in french is "to forget".
And here I thought Jesus wanted me to love everyone.
Oh well, now that I know he only wants me to follow his example, and his example states I don't have to love everyone, I can offer a valid reason why George W. Bush is loved by Christ.
Supposedly Jesus does love everyone. I guess it could be true, but I have a hard time imagining that the compassionate Jesus and the cruel god of the OT are one and the same. Infact, I'd be tempted to say they are opposites. Lucifer/Satan, etc. isn't nearly as vicious as Yaweh in the OT.
I could answer passage #1, but Furor intended it specifically for Verbal so I'll give him a shot first.
#2 seems similar, so I could probably answer that as well.
The President also speaks to Christ. Oddly enough, everyone is getting a different message from the same being.
I've already aired my grievance on this:
How can any Christian Conservative say that President Bush is a man of Christ?
The actions of his administration and him are, in many cases, the direct antithesis of the picture of Jesus that we get from the gospel.
Besides, why Christians would want to endorse any politician is beyond me; most of them are corrupt as hell, and the higher on the chain you get, the more corrupt you're likely to be.
What is so special about the death penalty here? We also put innocent people in prison, and force innocent people to pay fines. Why should there even be these options if we don't get it right most of the time?
Perhaps because an imperfect and fallible system of justice is better than no system at all. And perhaps because you've given no support for the loaded statement that we "don't get it right most of the time."
No. I don't consider being mildly annoying to be worthy of death. But if I did, then yes, I'd kill them. It gets them out of my hair, so who cares if they want it? Besides, there's no guarantee that they're right; I could be sending them to a nasty surprise.
Which is worth jack-squat to those in for life without parole.
And all this is a good thing?
Yes, I'm quite aware of the etymology; are you aware of the actual practice? Imagine, if you will, a tiny (sometimes only coffin-sized) pitch-black cell into which food and water is thrown only when the guards have the presence of mind to remember it, and you, are there (which, since the entire point of the oubliette is to forget about it, is seldom). It's like being buried alive, only it lasts far, far longer because you don't (usually) suffocate. But as long as you're living, right? At least they didn't give you a quick and painless death.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
By the same token, isn't all of life suffering? Don't we all, every human being ever to exist on this planet, suffer each day of our wretched existences? Would you prefer the quiet release of death to the painstaking drudge of everyday life?
Maybe. But most of us wouldn't.
Strengthen my steel should I falter
Smite my back should I flee
Save my soul should I fall
Official Recovering World of Warcraft Addict of The Ivory Tower
Acknowledging it helps it.
You wouldn't say a show that has a high rating which you think should have low rating would be one you would watch, correct?
Or, to put more simply: When you complain about something that is out of place, you draw attention to it. Just like me responding to what you said.
Which will, in all likelihood, lead to a response from you.
Have fun
Or if they do somthing that would be considerd high casulty under normal cicumstances and come back. they get pardoned
need web design and other services check us out.
http://www.webstudio914.com/
need web design and other services check us out.
http://www.webstudio914.com/
Sounds like you have been watching too many XXX DVDs (Vin Deisel XXX not porn XXX). Problem with this idea is that no one in that guy's troup is going to want to rely on him. If anyone knew what he did, he would basically be killed in training by some horrible unfortunate accident with rope, razers, bludgens, an army jeep, and 40 miles of gravel road.
That is like voting for death by torture I think.
PS. probably should delete the double post, before you get warned for spam (because stock advice is not a little off topic, it is completely unrelated) and because double posting is very frowned upon ( I know,because I have been warned for it)
read up on it better yet watch it it's pretty decent fo old school
and if you want to get technical in the movie vin deisels caracter was NOT a convicted felon
need web design and other services check us out.
http://www.webstudio914.com/
I don't like the idea of giving people who have a history of murder weapons training.
Lesser crimes, perhaps. But not anyone who would otherwise be sentenced to death.
Strengthen my steel should I falter
Smite my back should I flee
Save my soul should I fall
Official Recovering World of Warcraft Addict of The Ivory Tower
1) Removing the subject from society altogether.
2) Retribution.
The second point is clearly the reason why the death penalty should exist as a punishment over and above life imprisonment. It would be comforting for me to know that if one of my family members/friends is killed by a deranged maniac, that mother****er is going to get killed. Screw the two wrongs don't make a right crap, every family that has had a loved one taken by a murderer wants to see that sucker gassed (or worse). Take for example the recent London bombings; I'm sure everyone in London would love to see the people responsible for that atrocity die in an excruciating manner. Or, here is a better solution: take the guy from Ohio and put him into the general population, no special privilages, and see how long he lasts. People in jail HATE people like him, and will go out of their way to "get" him.
EDIT: Also, Edgecrusher, I would like to see the study/report where your most recent info was taken from. It seems a little..... fishy to me.
I do so try!
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.