GOP: Capital Punishment

[Asha'man]

Since this topic has kinda died, here's another that is along the same lines. What do you all think about capital punishment for criminals? I hope you don't mind others introducing new topics, Dengen.

Asha'man

[Ciryaher]

I am for the death penalty, but only in certain cases. Murder that is doubtlessly commited (expecially if the person admits it) should always be punished with death, and not a long drawn out prision sentance. No expensive painkillers should be used on the person either, when being executed. They caused pain, now they will feel it.

[Dengen-Goroth]

Not at all Asha'man, in fact I find it helpful. But why give them the easy way out of death, why not make them sit in a dank prison with his prison pal? They deserve the long term, death is to easy for these monsters. But I do not think we need these high facility prisons, why do they deserve our tax dollars going on easing their lives? Execution does not do justice to repay the pain cause by death, which can never realy be rapayed.

[Tar-Ancalime]

yes...because only your respective god can decide who should die

[Courtney]

Exactly my opinion Tar.

Who are we to decide when a person's life should end? It's easy to say, yeah, they deserve to die, but it's quite another to sit and think that once they die they are gone. You can never undo that decision.

Here's a quote from LOTR:
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the wise cannot see all ends."

I believe that even the most evil person can change, but not if we kill them before they get the chance.

[Beorn]

Whether or not they deserve to live cannot be easily decided for some, but way to easily for others. The child molester across the street from me--he deserves to die...but the guy who was playing with a nailgun and shot someone in the head--that's harder to decide.

I've a topic once this one dies out...it'll probably stir up some interesting perspectives...

[Courtney]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm ready for a new argument!:D

[Asha'man]

I don't think the really evil people can ever change, like child molesters and suchlike. I say kill them now, then they won't ruin anyone else's lives. Murderers also; they killed someone, now we kill them. We have no obligation to keep them alive in cushy (relatively) prisons with taxpayer dollars. Now manslaughter is different; if was accidental within a reasonable doubt, don't kill them. But if they committed premeditated murder, then rid the earth of their foulness.

Asha'man

[Courtney]

It costs more to kill a person (with lethal injection I'm assuming) than to keep them alive for the rest of their life. So it will cost poor taxpayers more to kill them.

[Tar-Ancalime]

I find to kill a person is murder even if he murdered a person...it makes no difference.Asha'man normally i willl agree with you...that is messed up put em in a prison for eternity...for gawd sake help them...give them happieness. I Know they killed but most kill because they have a greivance to settle with the murdered.

[Ciryaher]

Actually, it only costs more to kill a person because of:

A) The endless court appeals

B) Expensive chemicals...how much does it cost to stick a lethal dose of cyanide in a person, anyways?

[Asha'man]

Tar: How do you figure they deserve happiness? They took a life! That dead person undoubtedly had friends, family, even casual acquaintences who are deeply affected by their death. And who says that most murderers had a grievance to settle with the dead person? I'd think the opposite is true. Most murders are either random events (i.e., he looks rich, I think I'll knock him off and take his wallet), or acts of passion, like a fight or domestic dispute. I don't think they deserve happiness. After all, they just brought pain and suffering on many other people by killing one person. Why do they get to be happy? Or even comfortable - three squares a day, cable TV, central heating.......just kill them. They had no regard for another human's life, why should society feel any different about them?

Courtney: And it doesn't even have to be expensive. Whatever happened to the gallows or the headsman's axe? Cheap, cheap, cheap..........

I realize I may sound barbaric here, but murderers should die - that's all there is to it.

Asha'man

[Aerin]

What was it that Gandalf said? I don't have my book with me, but he said something to the effect of: Not all those who die deserve it, and some who live deserve to die. Will you be the one to judge?

Maybe it's because I was raised in a loving, Christian home, but I cannot condone the cold blood murder of anyone, even if they have killed someone else.
Taking a life is playing God. People do not tend to be wise; rather, they tend to be emotional and easily influenced. Saying that all those who have killed should die is merely another form of payback.

Ash, I can understand your point of view, but what about the friends and family of the murderer? Won't they miss that person?

My argument is probably ineffectual, but it's pretty much where I stand on the death penalty.

[Ciryaher]

Actually, there is nothing wrong with exectuting a murderer. If you read the Old Testament, you can die for much less than that.

Claiming Christianity as an excuse for letting a killer live on is not something I agree with. By taking someone elses (or more than one...) life automatically voids your own, and therefore you should be removed from society in the most effective way: death.

[Courtney]

The point Ithink we are trying to make is: what makes us so important that we can decide whether a person has the right to live or die?

You are saying that because a person took the life of another, we have the right to takes his/her life. That makes no sense. If it is wrong for a person to kill, then it is just as wrong for us to kill. Even if it is in the name of justice.

[Ciryaher]

No...it's wrong to kill an innocent person (in a sense that that person has not done others harm) but I see nothing wrong with killing scourges to Society.

[Asha'man]

Aerin: I was raised in a loving Christian home as well, and I've always been taught that murderers should die. The Bible says so in plain speech, for crying out loud. Believe it or not, Gandalf isn't the final word on things. :)

Will you be the one to judge?

No, but I will be one of twelve to judge. If we all think that this person killed the other person, and we can all agree on that, then we should call for the death penalty.

Why do you guys insist on keeping this people alive? Why do they deserve to live? They killed someone, and they must pay for that act with their own life. The lesson we can learn from this is *don't commit murder*!!! If we cracked down on convicted killers and executed them, sooner or later the message would get out and the murder rate would go down. But as long as would-be killers can be almost positive that they will have at most life in a relatively comfortable prison, they will not be deterred from murdering others. However, if they know that they will be hung, electrocuted, gassed or otherwise terminated, most will probably think twice about their actions.

Asha'man

[Dengen-Goroth]

Then how far have we come as a people? Now I know you may say easily, well indeed how far have we come as a people if we kill each other in cold blood. But why do the same? f we kill them, they shall escape from a life behind a cruel iron bar in a dank pungent cell infested with vermin. I think they should live, ut under the harshest of conditions. Also, if you want to kill them, why not use them for Human testing? Just wanted to bring up that topic.

[Talierin]

The quote is:

...said Frodo. 'I can't understand you, Do you mean to say that you, and the Elves, have let him live on after all those horrible deeds? Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death.'

Gandalf-'Deserve it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends...'

[Tar-Ancalime]

If we were to cruelly punish UBL, no matter how much damage he did...i would think we would lower our standards.The islamic radicals,or any radical is that way because he is unhappy about something, to kill ubl would just be glorifying him to his men

[Asha'man]

Dengen: Do you believe in Hell? I do, and I sincerely believe that most murderers (I say most, because some do accept Christ while in prison) will go to Hell. I cannot believe for a moment that a cold cell (or warm cell, in today's prisons) for at most 70 years or so is worse than the eternal fires of Hell.

Now human testing, there's an interesting topic. At first, I say who better for it than convicted killers who're on death row anyway? It can be looked at either way, though. If it involves pain, it could be called cruel and unusual punishment (i.e., torture) and I cannot condone that except in the most extreme cases. But what if it doesn't involve much pain, and will benefit mankind as a whole, like some breakthrough medicinal treatment or something? Sorry, I canna think of examples right now, but I'm sure there are many such experiments. In that case I would approve of the testing. However, I think there can be no definite decision on this, because so much depends on the individual case.

Asha'man

[daisy]

All I can say is that I am going to have " i come from a loving Christian home...it's okay to kill murderers..." monogammed on some bath towels.

Who says we can always be sure people are guilty? For you Canadians out there, David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin to name just two - both convicted of murder and put in jail, in Milgaard's case I believe it was 28 years - he would have been long dead and buried if he was in Dallas.

Who says it isn't murder to kill people during war? Because we're always the good guys? Tell that to the Somali's, Rwandans, Iraqis....women and children die from bombs just like crazy murderers do, huh?

I don't even know if I am against capital punishment, I am a mother and would personally kill anyone who messed with my child, but I think the eye for an eye thing is scary.

Executing mentally retarded people who have the mental age of four or five years old? - this happened.

Osama bin Laden will probably die of kidney disease or old age before any ally gets near him. and this is definitely better, as someone - Tar-Ancalime - mentioned because he would be an instant martyr if any violence befell him.

There are children on death row in the United States of America. Jesus, in the bible, said, " Suffer the children, let them come unto me."

[Bill the Pony]

In reaction to some of the arguments for the death penalty I've seen so far on this thread:

1. Deterring
Asha'man
If we cracked down on convicted killers and executed them, sooner or later the message would get out and the murder rate would go down.
According to the professor of an ethics course I took there have been studies done that in those states where the death penalty has been abolished or reinstated, there was no long-term change in the number of murders (or captical crimes if that's the word?) committed. Also, there seems to be no difference in the murder rate between states that do or don't have the death penalty.
(apologies I do not have references for this statement, it's been quite a while since I took that course, I remember the professor showing an overhead with the numbers)

2. Revenge
Quite a few people say: if someone kills he deserves to die. I can understand people feeling that way, people seem to want revenge if something terrible is done to them. But I agree completely with Courtney here:
If it is wrong for a person to kill, then it is just as wrong for us to kill. Even if it is in the name of justice.
True, those people who committed murder should be prevented from doing so again. But putting them in prison for the rest of their lives will achieve that goal just as nicely.

3. It could be cheaper to kill a person rather than locking them in a prison for life.
That may be true, but as Ciryaher states, most of the cost comes from the lengthy appeal process.
But that's exactly what can not be changed. Unfortunately the legal system is such that there are mistakes being made. Even if it is ok to kill someone who has committed murder (I don't agree, see point 2, but I can understand people feeling that way), it is unavoidable that at some point someone will be convicted who is innocent. That would make the whole society who approves of the death penalty a murderer (if that's too harsh a statement, you can take it down to the Jury or the person who gave the injection, or whoever you feel is responsible for the wrongful conviction). Does that mean that whoever is responsible must now be executed too? Maybe this is a far-fetched example, but all I'm trying to say is that I am against the death penalty because of the risk of murdering an innocent person.

Finally, since I am against the death penalty, I would not have people on death row ready to be experimented on, so I'll leave that discussion for people in favor of the death penalty.

[Courtney]

I think it is really disgusting to even suggest doing testing on prisoners!

First of all, these people are already screwed up enough. By doing experiments on prisoners, you are basically telling them that they are worthless, which will just screw them up even more.

You can't improve society by killing off all the bad people or all the people that don't fit into our society, that doesn't help anything.

Also, prisoners are still human and deserve to be treated like humans and not lab rats. You shouldn't force people to sacrifice their own lives to improve the lives of others.

[Beorn]

Well, I can't say I agree either with testing, but I do agree that they should be treated like the dregs of society that they are...

You might ask "How can you kill another human being?" Well, ask the killer... You might ask, "How do you think their family feels?" Well, how do you think the victim's family feels?...

[Asha'man]

Quoting daisy:

I don't even know if I am against capital punishment, I am a mother and would personally kill anyone who messed with my child, but I think the eye for an eye thing is scary.

Okay. What if it was someone else's child (husband, wife, sibling, parent)? How do you think they would feel? It sounds like what you're saying here is that it's okay to kill people who mess with your kid but not people who mess with other peoples' kids.

Mike B: Dregs of society is exactly what they are, and they have consciously brought themselves down to that level. Why do they deserve special treatment from us?

Asha'man

[Courtney]

They don't deserve special treatment, but they also don't deserve to be treated like animals either.

[Tar-Ancalime]

How can one desides one death...I did some reading in exodus and on around chapter twenty they had the laws the common penalty was death...so it would be fair to say that death is the punishement of barbarians and people with out a highly civilized manor. we with todays technology can do other things that murder a murderur, we can place him in a prison let him or whoever live.

[daisy]

Ahsa'man

Yes, It is true that my posting seems to be hypocritical. It kind of is. There is nothing rational or realistic about the feelings I have for my child, as possibly most parents would agree.
Yet I can apply rationality to my relationships or feelings for others. Therefore, if someone else's child was murdered, I would be horrified, saddened, angry, but would I kill because of it, therefore destroying my own life? Probably not. However, if someone killed my child, my life would be over anyway so who knows what I would do?

I was trying to communicate my ambivalence about the issue.

There are some monsters - Ted Bundy, William (?) Gacy, Jefferey Dahmer, Timothy MCVeigh...these guys deserved to be annihilated, but some of them confessed, and some of them were found with bodies practically lounging on their couches. I get nervous when we rely on circumstantial evidence and fallible witnesses to determine guilt.

I also get nervous when people start talking about throwing alleged terrorists off the Empire State Building!!!!
:)

[Tar-Ancalime]

indeed daisy...I feel i am nearly the only one who does not support death penalty. By nature it is wrong...even the vilest of men can have a good bone in their body...to bring it out and let it affect the other bones and maybe cause a change of heart is that not better than killing one.

[Courtney]

Don't forget me! I'm against the death penalty. Just because it says in the Old testament that people were punished by death, that doesn't mean we should do it.

"Love God with your whole heart soul and mind, And love your neighbor as yourself"

That's the rule we should follow. Would you like to have experiments done on you? Would you like to be electricuted?

[Asha'man]

No, Courtney, I would not like to have experiments done on me, nor would I like to be electrocuted. That is precisely why I am not going to go out and murder someone. You again:

Just because it says in the Old testament that people were punished by death, that doesn't mean we should do it.

Oh, I see. God tells us to do something, but that doesn't mean we should do it. :rolleyes:


Tar: You said,

we with todays technology can do other things that murder a murderur, we can place him in a prison let him or whoever live.

What new technology? How is locking someone up for the rest of their natural life today different from doing it a thousand years ago? The main difference is that that person's prison term is being paid for by you and me. I've read different figures, but it seem that the average cost of a prisoner is $30,000 or more a year, which comes out of the taxpayer's pockets. If a person clearly and intentionally murdered someone (unlike the hockey dad case, which is being tried as manslaughter - I concur) then they should get a few appeals and then execution. If you want to pay to keep this killer alive, that's your problem, but don't make me do it.

New topic? I think we're starting to stagnate. I'm not going to change my mind, and I think you guys won't either. How about Mike B can post his killer (!) topic?

Asha'man

[Tar-Ancalime]

I beleive no matter how cold-blooded the killer is he can be changed...geez why was gollum kept alive! Gollum had some good that was "brought" out by "cold steel". At any rate, it is barbaric to kill even a killer for you yourself are at his level.

[Beorn]

You can't call it 'hot.' Some people don't like the idea of it, and are fiercely against it, some think it's sick, some will like the idea but won't try it, and some will try it. Some believe it's a coverup for something more, some believe it is rude, some believe it is wrong, and a select few just like it 'cause it's comfortable.

EDIT: That's actually not all that vague...

[Moonbeams]

Nice topics. What does one have to do to joing the Guild of Politics?

Now, on the subject of death penalty. I do not belive in it, because that is the easy way out. A men kills somebody, you kill him, nobody learned anything. The moment you kill the murderer, you yourself become one, even if you find a justification for it. What is left after all good words is a dead body.
I say, find a way to re-educate them. Any of you read the clockwork orange? I did not see the movie, I just read the book, but in my opinion, that is the thing that has to be done to every violent person on this earth. Ultimatly, it would maybe cost you as much as keeping them in prison, or as much as killing them. But by educating them to see what they have done, and making them feel guilty, that would make them suffer more than death (which is only a minute of pain), or imprisonment. Guilt is moslty what people who can kill or rape or torture lack. Gulit is a very powerful thing. Just take a look at yourselves, and you will see that guilt is the one thing that makes life miserable. If you make them feel guilty, and phisicly impossible to kill/murder/rape/torture/whatever, you have won as a society, and as human race.

[Tar-Ancalime]

that was so inspiring!*tear*

[Dengen-Goroth]

Consider yourself in, I am leader of this guild, and have to say I am very proud of all of you. We're going to move on to another topic tomorow though, we've spent a good deal on the death penalty. if anyone objects, please PM me. I'll easily reconsider.
Moonbeam-You bring up near my opinion. But what if they do not reform? What if these convicts feign to have either excepted God, or become productive citizens, and only do this to exit from their torment in Prison. We can't focus on such forms of "punishment", becuse they simply aren't punishment. I agree that when this occurs we move foward as a Society, but unfortunatly it is those who commit these crimes who hold us back. Perhaps it may work, or may not, we can not be sure. But very well stated response!
Also I find it personally interesting how some think, and i'm really not trying to point anyone out, that you believe that the death penalty is acceptable but using Prisners as test subjects is not. I know it may seem cruel and wicked, but it would benefit the majority of humanity by discovering cures to viruses, such as AIDs and Cancer. I believe it is better then the death penalty, though both, in my mind, are moraly wrong.

[Tar-Ancalime]

so in other words you'd be captured for the simple use of a test...a number...a statistic

[Courtney]

Ashaman,
Christians do not simply follow the rules of the old testament. when Jesus came he added on to the list. And I do believe it says in the Bible, judge and you shall be judged.

So if we are harsh in our judgement of others God will be harsh in his judgement of us.

[Tar-Ancalime]

blessed are the merciful for they shall see mercy...
If we kill ubl i wonder what that would amount to

[LadyGaladriel]

what are your veiws on CP?



Personally I agree with the Death penalty . The police are now capable of forsenic evidence whichmeans they are certain that a killer is a Killer . I think that once you kill someone you lose all rights to live . You have taken their rights. I think that killing a murdeerer means there is no chance of that person getting free after 5 years or so and killling again .

[Gloer]

Nothing is as certain than uncertanity. Except death.
And it is a folly to use the only absolute punishment in a world where nothing else is certain.

[Thorin]

I think CP should only be used in cases where the person is guilty beyond all doubt. Yes governments can make mistakes, so this power should not be wielded too lightly. However, I am all for it. I believe that when someone takes someone elses life (murder-wise, not manslaughter or self defence) they have forfeited their right to live. Taking someone's present and future is the most horrible crime, yet people who deal drugs or kidnap are given much harsher sentences. It's a crying shame that murderers are allowed to live when an innocent person is dead. Where's the logic in that??

All these bleeding hearts who use these lame excuses like "Well, killing this person is not going to bring the other person back" Or "Destroying any person is not right and two wrongs don't make a right." are just spouting a bunch of nonsense. Of course it won't get the deceased back. That is not the point. The point is about justice and meteing out a punishment that fits the crime. It's called retributive justice.

The Bible points out that CP is a just and fair practice. And if anyone points out Jesus' words of "You have heard of an eye for an eye, but I say love your enemies", and "Turn the other cheek", I will point out to them that Jesus was talking about our interpersonal relationships. He was not talking about the God-given task of a government using it's judicial power.

Read Romans 13:1-7 to see that murderers should be held equally accountable by the government for the crimes they committed, and an eye for an eye is the only fair punishment in the judicial system.

[Gloer]

If a deliberate murder is wrong then what can justify capitol punishment?

[LadyGaladriel]

Because they have lost their right to live and are going straight to hell for killing an innocent person who also lost their right to live after a madman killed them .
Capital punishment aso stops these murdeers ect from doing it again and makes examples of them .
"an eye for an eye"


are you saying that if a madman radomnly killed someone close to you . you would be happy for him to go to prison and have all the comforts and possibly have a better lifestyle than a poor person does .

Prison cells now look quite comfy and cosy with a nice televison , a radio , a fridge ..........



Y not let them rot in enternal damnation for what they done.

[Elfarmari]

Why do we kill people who kill people to show them that killing people is wrong?

I am completely opposed to the death penalty because no-one has the right to end another's life. That is why murder is such a henious crime; it violates the victims inherent right to live. I don't think we need to pamper murderers, but some can reform, and those who don't will live out their lives in prison and then go to eternal damnation, if that iswhat they earned by their lives.

P.S., may I join this guild?

[daisy]

why do discussions of this sort always wind their way back to the bible? I don't kow about you , but I live in a country where there is a clear and very important division between church and state. As well, there are many things in the old testament that are downright scary and now illegal, including the treatment of women, gays and African Americans. I do not want to live in a country dictated by the bible, like...oh I don't know, Osama Bin Laden uses the Qu'ran to justify his craziness?

You should look at capital punishment as a LEGAL ISSUE not a RELIGIOUS ISSUE. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. Thank God ( hee hee).

As for my opinion, it is a tough one. And one I bet I have given already somewhere around here. There are too many innocent men finally getting released after years and years in prison and who could have faced the death penalty were it in place in their state. However, in terms of DNA evidence, especially in cases like the murders of Danielle Van Dam and Samantha Runnion, BRING IT ON. These freaks can not be rehabilitated. It also depends on what the clear purpose of the penal system is . if you are someone who believes it is a deterrent and a rehabilitative system needs to understand the causes and motivations behind criminal behaviour. It is often not a choice, but a behavioural pattern which is ingrained and is not easily changed. Also, when people are released from prison, the system in place to integrate them back into society ( i.e. job, housing, societal role) is woefully inadequate. I could go on.
Prison as a housing project to keep offenders away from the rest of us is another thing entirely and one that is closer to the truth. Yet violent sex offenders and pedophiles are NOT CHANGEABLE or fixable. This is obivous when looking at the prior convictions of many child murderers and rapists.
SO what happens to them? DNA EVIDENCE should = death sentence and that's it.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Elfarmari
Why do we kill people who kill people to show them that killing people is wrong?

I am completely opposed to the death penalty because no-one has the right to end another's life. That is why murder is such a henious crime; it violates the victims inherent right to live.


We are not "killing people to show them that killing is wrong." We are meeting out retribution for a crime that was not the victim's choice or fault. We are punishing someone for needlessly brutalising an innocent victim without any regard for the person as a human being. The state is appointed by the people to punish offenders according to the crime.

You cannot compare ending the life of a murderer in the name of justice and cold-blooded murder of an innocent victim. Murder is a "heinous crime and violates the victim's inherent right to live" as you've put it. However, the murderer is not innocent but has shed innocent blood. He has therefore forfeited his right to live and deserves to die as he has recklessly caused the death of another.

[Gloer]

Ok. Let's assume we accept your reasoning Thorin.
The punishment is based on losing rights to live because the murderer does not respect life.

The question is: Who has a right to implement this punishment?

I do not, you do not, actually no-one does.
Maybe if everybody all together could do it.
You will be adding a lot of zeros together to get a one. Impossible.

No government, jury, judge or any other one man or group of men has any better right to kill than the killer to be punished.

[LadyGaladriel]

U wanna know something I dont understand some of you .


You are all for having a nice society where Murderers have a bloody telly and are quite happy in their surroundings but if someone killed someone close to u would be quite as satisfied with this system ?

Murderers dont rot in Jail . I bloody well wish they would instead thye have all the comforts in Life ect . Then they get out in 10 years to do it again .

I think Murderers should have the most painfull death possible for they took someones LIFE . They took someones FUTURE ! And their punishment is that they dont have a future . Its soicetys right to punish these people .

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Gloer
The question is: Who has a right to implement this punishment?
I do not, you do not, actually no-one does.
Maybe if everybody all together could do it.
You will be adding a lot of zeros together to get a one. Impossible.

No government, jury, judge or any other one man or group of men has any better right to kill than the killer to be punished.

Actually, you are wrong, Gloer. From a Christian standpoint and from a humanist stand point, the government does have the right to inflict that sort of punishment. Death is a punishment. It is the ultimate punishment but it is a punishment nonetheless. To say that the government, a jury of peers taken from society, doesn't have the right to dish out that punishment, means that they don't have the right to dish out ANY punishment.

A government doesn't have the right to terminate a cold-blooded murderer's life, but it has the right to throw a man in prison with a 300 year sentence to rot in jail, with no hope of rehabilitation, reformation or redemption? There is no justice for the family these days for a convicted murderer with no remorse. Our jails are full of people with no hope of reformation who are just waiting for the chance to commit a crime again. Keeping them alive in a cushy prison is just a waste of tax payers money and a slap in the face to the family of the sweet teenager who was raped, tortured and murdered for no other reason but that she was in the wrong place in the wrong time.

Read Romans 13:1-7 again and tell me that God hasn't appointed the government to rule the nation and dish out punishment in a retributive fashion as it sees fit.

[Gloer]

Nor does any religious belief.

It just does not add up.

I do agree with you: killing criminals is a solution for crime. More criminals should be terminated instead of sentenced in to prison.

But this does not make capitol punishment a punishment nor just.
It is a mere solution, just like the Final solution of the jewish problem in Germany. The Germans wanted to get rid of Jewish culture all together. So instead of keeping them alive in Ghetto's they decided to kill them. we want to det rid of criminal underworld all together, right?

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Gloer
It is a mere solution, just like the Final solution of the jewish problem in Germany. The Germans wanted to get rid of Jewish culture all together. So instead of keeping them alive in Ghetto's they decided to kill them. we want to det rid of criminal underworld all together, right?

I fail to see how you can honestly compare the genocide of millions of innocent people to the state execution of a cold-blooded murderer. That is extremely offensive and totally uncomparable.

Originally posted by Gloer
Nor does any religious belief.
It just does not add up.

I disagree. Religious beliefs are reflected in society. The morality of a people are shown in the laws they make. To say that religious belief does not come into play is to neglect the entire history of laws and governments, for each one, whether good or bad has been established on religious and moral principles. Please explain how capital punishment is not a punishment? Are you assuming that punishment is only for redemptive purposes? In other words, the killer has no chance to repent, or reform from that death, so it is not a punishment? Please keep in mind that punishment is a finality as well. It is also considered a deterrent and message for others. Whether that is effective or not is another issue.

[Gloer]

is a solution.

You yourself took the point out: you dared to justify capitol punishment with full jails and expenses.

This has nothing to do with justice and lot to do with economics and solving a problem regardless of what the measures are.

I myself feel that there is no problem that important that it should be solved by killing anyone.

The Nazi-part was provocative, sorry. The point is not in the substance of the "crime" or what could/should be punishable by death. we might as well say that an act A is punishable by CP.

What comes to the other thing I don't know wheather CP is a deterrant for other criminals. I doubt it is. Possibilety of getting caught is way more important deterrant than any penalty.
The criminal has no reason to repent, he has had victims but now he is victim himself. that settles the score - everybody looses.
Except the fiscus that saves money from jail expenses.
I tell you I do not have a perfect punishment to present.
Nevertheless capitol punishment has draw backs.
For one there is certainly a feeling of righteous revenge of the vitims or their closest. This spirit of revenge is not extinguished by feeding it with a possibilety of executions. People that are hurt want to strike back and often as hard as possible. Through the courts they can seek to murder their enemy. I don't think it should be possible.

[Winged Elf]

To my mind, the most important argument against capital punishment is that it's almost never possible to be completely certain that the accused is in fact guilty. Too many innocent people have been executed with the truth only later coming to light for me to agree that it's morally right.

[LadyGaladriel]

Originally posted by Winged Elf
To my mind, the most important argument against capital punishment is that it's almost never possible to be completely certain that the accused is in fact guilty. Too many innocent people have been executed with the truth only later coming to light for me to agree that it's morally right.

With Foresnic evidence you can trace anyone to any place .


In the past that has happened but now its too through

[Gloer]

ok. I also saw the minority report. The system is perfect, blaa blaa blaa
Still there was no capitol punishment!?

Why?

Because impossibilety of absolute certanity is not the prime argument against CP.

[Winged Elf]

Originally posted by Gloer
ok. I also saw the minority report. The system is perfect, blaa blaa blaa
Still there was no capitol punishment!?

Why?

Because impossibilety of absolute certanity is not the prime argument against CP.

No, because in the case of that movie, their justice system relied on catching people before they committed the crimes that had been predicted, and locking them up before they could actually do it. None of them had actually done what they were imprisoned for - which opens up a whole other ethical can of worms - but executing them for crimes they were known not to have actually committed might have been a step to far.

What would you say is the prime argument against, then?

[Gloer]

The prime argument is that there is no justification for deliberate killing of anyone. CP is neccesserily deliberate. Even a revange by a rage ridden victim is more excusable than CP even if it is not justifiable in most cases.

[DGoeij]

Man, that I have missed this thread.:confused:

Anyway, the fact that one cannot absolutely be sure if you have the right killer (even with todays forensics, it's not that easy to be completely sure), is a very good reason not to use CP in your country.

In my country it was just recently proven that two men, who had been in jail for at about 7 years, had NOT raped and murdered the victim of the crime they were accused of. A lot of forensic evidence was available, but badly used, misinterprete, overlooked, etc. These men could have been dead.

Apart from that, I think it is simply wrong to give a government or legal system the ability to kill a person. Nobody has the moral right to decide about life and death, IMHO. It solves nothing, it doesn't help, and it is, IMO plain wrong.
I have to admit that prison sentence it not much of an alternative to some of the crimes that happen, but that is no reason for CP.

[LadyGaladriel]

These Murdering people deserve it totally .
To me even Phedophiles deserve the noose.

[Courtney]

Capital Punishment just doesn't make any sense. You can't say that you are justified for killing someone because they did it first. That is childish. I don't know what else to call it. Every single person has something good or respectable in them. Yes, even murderers.

[Thorin]

You are not "killing someone because they did it first". You are punishing someone who violated the rights of an innocent person in the worst way, by senselessly taking their life. People who fight and kill in wars are not condemned, nor are people who kill in self-defence. The taking of an innocent life is most horrendous in the eyes of man and of God. That sort of violation should not be taken lightly. Retributive justice is only fair and honorable. If someone has such little regard for the life of an innocent that he takes it selfishly and carelessly, he/she has forfeited their own life for doing so.

Good grief people, the punishment needs to fit the crime! It is pretty pathetic for someone who rapes, tortures and kills someone by stabbing them 40 or 50 times to get the same punishment of an embezzler of millions of dollars...The more henious the crime, the more serious the punishment...

[Courtney]

The purpose of a Christain, or any believer in God, is not to destroy those who don't follow God's laws, but to show them the way, to set the example. I hate giving big long qoutes, but this one is just so appropriate:
Ezekiel 33:7-9
"Thus says the Lord: You, son of man, I have appointed watchman for the house of Israel; when you hear me say anything, you shall warn them for me. If I tell the wicked, 'O wicked one, you shall surely die,' and you do not speak out to dissuade the wicked from his way, the wicked shall die for his guilt, but I will hold you responsible for his death. But if you warn the wicked, trying to turn him from his way, and he refuses to turn from his way, he shall die for his guilt, but you shall save yourself."
It is our responsibility to help those in need, not to judge them. And for every person we condemn, we condemn ourselves.

[LadyGaladriel]

Courtney this isn't just about christianity . There are many other people who are into other major religons .

How can you justifiy a murderer or rapist simply getting 4 years or so when that person is dead forever . wheres the justice in that

[Gloer]

One argument presented as justification of CP has been that a murderer has in violating against another persons right to live in fact lost his right to live. I thought of it and came to the conclusion that allowing that it will still not justify capitol punishment.

The murderer has no right to live. But the victim or his follower does not gain any special right to demand the life of the murderer.
The public does not gain a right to demand his life either.
The criminal has to deal with himself that he has violated beyond redemption. If we agree with capitol punishment, we also agree that a killer can serve his punishment and another persons life has a prise.
Murderer is best punished by letting him live long in captivity.

I recommend everybody in favour of CP to read "Crime and punishment" by Dostojevski. Here is a link to the book. This is readable on the screen:
http://www.krime.com/

And this is a .txt version:
http://eserver.org/fiction/crime-and-punishment.txt

[Courtney]

I am not saying that I only believe Capital Punishment is wrong because it says so in the Bible. In a past post, someone mentioned that God finds capital punishment fair and honorable. I strongly disagree with that. That is why I added that quote. No one should presume to say what God thinks.
And you are absolutely right. This argument has nothing to do with religion. It is a matter of logic. People are not perfect. They make mistakes. Death is one thing that you can NEVER take back. No person on earth has the right to decide when someone's life should end, whether it is the life of the most kind and loving person, or a cold-blooded murderer.
Oh, and Gloer, "Crime and Punishment" is one of my favorite books.

[Thorin]

And yet Courtney, you are contradicted by the Bible itself which promotes capital punishment throughout the society of God's people...I also encourage you to look again at Romans 13:1-7 ( I believe), which tells the criminals to be careful because God has established the government to deal out the sword if necessary....

Killing is not necessarily morally wrong (i.e. self defence) murder is and is strictly forbidden according to the 10 commandments (and the correct translation is "thou shalt not murder". What the government does is deal out retribution which has been a government position since Moses...It's biblical, Courtney, and it's only fair. Eye for an eye is always how God's government has worked....Governments have the God given right and power to implement such a punishment....We, as regular citizens, do not. Hence the difference between capital punishment and vigilantism.

[Gloer]

Jesus was tried and sentenced to death. Wihtout Capitol Punishment he would have rotten in a dungeon for 20 years more.


Luke 23:33
When they came to the place called The Skull, there they crucified Him and the criminals, one on the right and the other on the left.

Luke 23:34
But Jesus was saying, "Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing." And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves.

I think that makes CP a pagan thing to do... For people who do not know what they are doing, for people who have maybe heard but not received gospel.

[Thorin]

Oh please, Gloer...You can't compare the Savior to a criminal. The criminal on the cross said so himself about Jesus, "We deserve what we've gotten, but this man has done nothing."

Jesus said, "Father forgive them", because they were crucifying their only way to salvation and putting to to death the Son of God. He wasn't saying, "Father forgive them for using capital punishment when they could have thrown me in prison for life instead."

The Roman's were the law back then, and like all governments before them, practiced capital punishment allowed by God for murderous criminals...The fact that some governments abuse and misuse that power is not the issue...

[Gloer]

The kingdom of God is not from this world and so God does not support disobediance against earthly government that rules by the laws made by men such as Capitol Punishment.

[Courtney]

Well... I will just let you two argue back and froth with your silly quotes. I thought we were trying to get away from the religious aspect of this. I gave a quote in which the Bible states that capital punishment is wrong, and you have given qoutes in which the Bible says it is fair. So, the Bible contradicts itself... what have you got to say for that?

Anyway: I don't see how anyone can think they have the right (God given right, especially) to take the life of another. I think if there is anything good whatsoever in a person, whether in the past, or the possibility of it in the future, that person deserves the chance to live, the chance to improve himself. I like to think that God would like everyone to go to Heaven (since he loves ALL his creatures, including criminals). If we kill a criminal instead of helping them and giving them the chance to repent, we have basically sent one of God's creatures straight to Hell. And there is nothing holy or just in that.

[Courtney]

oh... and Thorin...I really don't think that the Savior of ALL people would be offended at being compared to criminals... a Savior who befiended prostitutes and dined with tax collectors.

[Thorin]

Courtney,
Before you get too sanctimonious in your biblical interpretation,
#1. The "bible verse" you quote has nothing to do with anti-capital punishment, especially considering that CP was the norm and perfectly acceptable in the OT..The verse is about holding believers responsible for preaching and converting the wicked.... No contradiction and Romans 13 still stands as a big endorsement for CP...

#2. Comparing a Holy God to the nature of someone who is a sinner (Christ was not a sinner), who has brutally raped, tortured and murdered a child is blasphemous to say the least....God loves the sinner, but His nature is in no way associated with the sinner's evil deeds that have warranted such a punishment as CP...Your theology needs a bit of tweaking...

Gloer,

To say that God has no participation in government is to discredit many references in the Bible, and to ignore the fact that in the bible God has set up and taken down many kingdoms, both wicked and righteous...Never mind the fact that it shows that God is not interested or in control of our world in the least.

[LadyGaladriel]

Originally posted by Thorin
Courtney,
Before you get too sanctimonious in your biblical interpretation,
#1. The "bible verse" you quote has nothing to do with anti-capital punishment, especially considering that CP was the norm and perfectly acceptable in the OT..The verse is about holding believers responsible for preaching and converting the wicked.... No contradiction and Romans 13 still stands as a big endorsement for CP...

#2. Comparing a Holy God to the nature of someone who is a sinner (Christ was not a sinner), who has brutally raped, tortured and murdered a child is blasphemous to say the least....God loves the sinner, but His nature is in no way associated with the sinner's evil deeds that have warranted such a punishment as CP...Your theology needs a bit of tweaking...

Gloer,

To say that God has no participation in government is to discredit many references in the Bible, and to ignore the fact that in the bible God has set up and taken down many kingdoms, both wicked and righteous...Never mind the fact that it shows that God is not interested or in control of our world in the least. I agree with you thorin although Christ is meant to love the criminal (if he repents for his evil deeds) Chirst isn't a criminal .

[Thorin]

Originally posted by LadyGaladriel
I agree with you thorin although Christ is meant to love the criminal (if he repents for his evil deeds) Chirst isn't a criminal .

Actually, LG, Christ loves the sinner even if he doesn't repent...But you are right...Loving and being associated with by nature are two different things...:)

[Courtney]

If Jesus loved sinners, why would He cared if He was compared to them. I HATE it when poeple use their religion as an excuse. We are all sinners. We all make mistakes. God forgives us in the same manner that we forgive others. Would you want God to be merciless in His punishment towards you?
Who cares about your quotes from the Bible? Not everything that is right or wrong has to be explained word for word in the Bible. How we act to these criminals doesn't matter as much as how we feel towards them. Christians are supposed to be compassionate and caring towards EVERYONE. The taking of a life, ANY life, is NEVER justified!

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Courtney
Who cares about your quotes from the Bible? Not everything that is right or wrong has to be explained word for word in the Bible. How we act to these criminals doesn't matter as much as how we feel towards them. Christians are supposed to be compassionate and caring towards EVERYONE. The taking of a life, ANY life, is NEVER justified!

WHAT? A Christian taking something from the scriptures to show the truth and support what they believe?? UNHEARD OF!! Come on, Courtney. Do you believe in the Word of God or not? As Christians ALL our truth and ALL that we believe should come from the scriptures. It is amazing how many Christian people (and I'm talking about quite a few people I've run in to) will pooh-pooh the Bible away when it contradicts what they've grown up to believe. "The Bible says this, but I'm going to believe that." Jesus had strong words for such people.

Originally posted by Courtney
If Jesus loved sinners, why would He cared if He was compared to them. I HATE it when people use their religion as an excuse. We are all sinners. We all make mistakes. God forgives us in the same manner that we forgive others. Would you want God to be merciless in His punishment towards you?

God does love the sinner, and so are we supposed to...However, sin and crimes must and will have consequences, and justice must not be replaced by grace. If we must love the sinner and forgive them, why not just free all the criminals and give them second chance?? That logic is faulty when taken to it's natural conclusion.

Even at the end of the world, sinners will be punished (whether they are burned in hell, or annihilated as I believe). Sin must receive it's just punishment both here on earth and in the afterlife. Despite what you want to ignore, the Bible shows that God has established governments to use whatever laws and consequences as they see fit, and one of those is capital punishment. It was used throughout the Bible and throughout Bible history without any condemnation by God...

[Gloer]

I would like to comment on the role of the government, the law and christianity.

Law and government are always made up by men and they choices. Jesus denied always that his teachings were to become law or him to establish a government. He never ment to establish an earthly kingdom.

He established a moral code: do to others what you wish for yourself: And turn the other cheek.

That is it. He did not oppose the roman rule their laws and their government. He did not oppose the capitol punishment either. It was a government issue. It was the law and choice made by men, not by him nor God. The choice is ours.

If one of us kills we kill, because that is what he wanted? Or turn the other cheek and lock him away...

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Gloer
Law and government are always made up by men and they choices. Jesus denied always that his teachings were to become law or him to establish a government. He never ment to establish an earthly kingdom.

He established a moral code: do to others what you wish for yourself: And turn the other cheek.

That is it. He did not oppose the roman rule their laws and their government. He did not oppose the capitol punishment either. It was a government issue. It was the law and choice made by men, not by him nor God. The choice is ours.

If one of us kills we kill, because that is what he wanted? Or turn the other cheek and lock him away...

Jesus did not come to set up an earthly kingdom, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether God is involved with governments and their ruling. Once again, God has mentioned in the Bible that He set up kingdoms and can take those kingdoms away. Let's look at this quote that no one seems to have read, that directly contradicts your idea that God has nothing to do with governments.....Paul, one of the great promoters and establishers of the Christian faith, given inspiration by God, says:

"Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. There is no government anywhere that God has not placed in power. So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow. For the policeman does not frighten people who are doing right, but those doing evil will always fear him. The policeman is sent by God to help you. But if you are doing something wrong, of course you should be afraid, because he will have you punished" Romans 13:1-4

The King James says "he is the minister of God to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil"

Sounds pretty obvious to me....

The problem with the "turning the other cheek", is that you are mixing up the edict for interpersonal relationships with governmental laws....Christ was telling us to turn the other cheek when someone may personally wrong us and to not take revenge, for "vengeance is mine, saith the Lord". God does not condone vigilantism...Why? Because He has established the governments to enforce the law....

In terms of "turning the other cheek", should this be the rule for governments, then all criminals should go free, not be locked away..."Turning the other cheek" means forgiveness and letting "bygones be bygones"...Can you honestly say that this is the way that governments should work? The answer is "no" because "turning the other cheek" is not an edict for how the government should work. There is a difference, otherwise all the criminals should be walking the streets....

[Gloer]

I intrepret that thing Paul says as making clear that religion and gospel has nothing to do with how the government is ran. Christianity was not be a revolutionary movement. he gave the only plausible basis for obediance of government that is not ruling according to the teachings of christianity that is to say the government rules because god allows it to rule. I agree turning other cheek is practical for personal ethics, not government. But i also remain convinced that this is the only message and instruction bible gives. it does not say that governments rule because they have God given authority to do so.

For example: I am sure you agree with me that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq does not have a God given authority nor democratic support either. The former goes with the government of George Bush and the latter depends on the congress, the constitution and the people of course.

The thing is that capitol punishment can not be backed with bible. It can be criticised with it, but not condemned since Christian faith is not involved with governmental or juridical matters. those things are secular.

[Thorin]

"there is NO government in power that God did not put there...those who refuse to obey the laws of the land refuse to obey God..."

I don't know how many ways there are to interpret this, Gloer...

God is not responsible for the abuse or misuse of power that the governments do (CP is not one of those, however), but that government is in power only because God has allowed it. Even in the Old Testament, God still took responsibility for some of the worst kingdoms. God even allowed Israel to be taken into captivity by them to show that He was the one in control of allowing both good and bad kingdoms to flourish...even Afghanistan and Iraq...

The thing is that capitol punishment can not be backed with bible. It can be criticised with it, but not condemned since Christian faith is not involved with governmental or juridical matters. those things are secular.

I'm not sure what this quote means....God's own kingdom had the endorsement for using capital punishment. Israel was more of a theocracy, that's true, but that only lends more credence to the fact that God, at lease indirectly endorsed CP. What do you mean "it can be criticised with it, but not condemned?"

[Gloer]

I ment
1. I agree that God allows governments to rule. But he doesn't put governments in place, nor does he authorise them. People do that.
2. Criticising Capitol Punishment is clear: it is not turning the other cheek. But since that is for private ethics, not legislation, it is not enough for condemnation.

I wouldn't try to seek authoritisation for Capitol Punishment from the idea that God has a different set of rules for public matters.

The simplest solution is that people should try to turn the other cheek in their private lives and as far as they can in public. But since public laws are not entirely our own choices, but the rulers and other peoples as well, we should follow them even if we would not agree. When we choose our personal stand however I believe a christian should not support CP. But then not many christians think they are flawless. World is not perfect, is it?

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Gloer
The simplest solution is that people should try to turn the other cheek in their private lives and as far as they can in public. But since public laws are not entirely our own choices, but the rulers and other peoples as well, we should follow them even if we would not agree

So what you're saying, Gloer, is that should some sick rapist come and rape and murder your mother or come and brutally torture and murder your father, that you would just "turn the other cheek" and let them go free to live their life if the government gave you that option; and that Christians should do so as well, if there were a government option for you to decide? Would Christ really want us to do that? The Bible speaks out against injustice to mankind and (back to Romans again) that's why he put governments in place....Justice is needed for the well being of the human race...Turning the other cheek is not a government option, nor should be.

[Courtney]

This is ridiculous. This guild is supposed to be where we discuss politics, not religious beliefs. Does anyone have anything to say about capital punishment that does NOT involve our religions?

[Gloer]

Thorin and I had a pretty good argument over the christian view on CP. Great many CP supporters are also religious christians and if one is to try to convince theother the other party must understand. One must speak the other parties language and i don't think capitol punishment is actually a very christian idea at all. I think we can drop the religion since I can't convince Thorin that Christ actually condemned CP and he can no way back the position that bible is actually saying that CP is right and good. For practical reasons government has the right to enforce law and order but that doesn't exactly mean CP.

[Thorin]

Yeah, relax Courtney....I don't see any "political arguments" coming from your end....All you said is that Christians don't need to support themselves from the Bible...:rolleyes:

Gloer, I don't recall you having any biblical proof or support that the Bible condemns CP...By the fact that it was used by both God and God's nation, and that there are explicit commands (which I've shown) that show that God has set up the kingdoms and allowed them to rule by history's own example, should be support enough in my favor...

[Gloer]

Thorin, you have a very Old Testament view of Christianity.
New Testament is different from the Old.
God doesn't take sides anymore. We are all sinners and that is it.

[daisy]

Okay, one more time for good measure: Capital punishment is a legal issue - a state by state consequence which is pursued by district attorneys as a punishment for a crime - murder - sometimes multiple, sometimes of a police officer etc. Who cares what the bible has to say about this? Why does the bible have anything to do with it??? The United States of America is a multi-faith country which has laws about the separation between church and state... Yes, the bible deals with many issues we face daily, but it is NOT the legally recognised authority, nor can it be connected with the LEGALITY of capital punishment. Why does the Guild of Politics seem to often veer into Christian discussion? Isn't there a guild or something where Christian views can be discussed in a more suitable environment? sheesh. And don't even start in with, " Oh, she;s anti-Christian blah blah blah" because I can possible be both a Christian and irritated by the manipulation of this thread into a religious debate.

[daisy]

And if you want to label yourself a sinner, go ahead Gloer, but don't think your religion gives you the right to label me as such or judge me. Judge not and all, eh?

[Thorin]

Whoa! Relax a bit, daisy!

I for one am a strong supporter of separation of church and state. The issue discussed was not a mix of the two. Courtney and Gloer threw in the religious angle about Christians and the Bible not supporting the death penalty and I was commenting on that angle. It is still capital punishment and don't think that moral and christian values don't play a part in how the world looks at CP. So it is very much relevant...I would love to start a religious thread and I probably will in Stuff and Bother soon enough.

And even if it weren't, many other threads go ridiculously off topic. Why aren't you vehemently opposing those? What do you expect but for people to call you "anti-christian".

[daisy]

I guess it is because every time I visit this forum, and especially this thread, someone is mixing Christianity into things and I would hope that this forum remains a non-denominational, non-religion specific site - I wouldn't be surprised if some people are turned off this site because they stumble into Christian debates once too often. And yes, I can separate Christianity with pretty much everything and do not accept it being subscribed into my justice system EVER. That is why in Canada we have more than one court case going about child abuse where the parents and self-proclaimed Christian religious leaders felt they were above the law and able to beat children with rods and sticks because of some bible reference. These children were taken from their parents because church and state often subscribe to different codes of conduct and the state wins. Capital punishment cannot be generally addressed as a Christian issue and to even begin to say that it is is isolationist in terms of other religions. This is not a Christian site. I am anti-religion mongering on what is supposed to be a site that is not religiously affiliat

[Thorin]

Originally posted by daisy
I guess it is because every time I visit this forum, and especially this thread, someone is mixing Christianity into things and I would hope that this forum remains a non-denominational, non-religion specific site

I don't understand this reasoning. What is the big deal if people want to state what they believe about anything, be it religion or politics? Nobody is trying to force anyone to convert, no one is trying to make the forum into any denominational, or religious forum? Are you that intolerant that the word "religion" or "christian" threatens you? Opinions of all kinds are expressed freely and accepted on the forum. Religion is one of those things enmeshed in the lives of everyone....What's the big deal?

Originally posted by daisy
I wouldn't be surprised if some people are turned off this site because they stumble into Christian debates once too often.

Well, that is their perogative and I fail to see how anyone should be offended by Christian debates...To me that shows serious intolerance and over-sensitivity, nevermind a shallow personality that cannot handle discussions on a religon that promotes love, forgiveness, mercy and second chances.

Originally posted by daisy
That is why in Canada we have more than one court case going about child abuse where the parents and self-proclaimed Christian religious leaders felt they were above the law and able to beat children with rods and sticks because of some bible reference. These children were taken from their parents because church and state often subscribe to different codes of conduct and the state wins.

FYI, I am from Canada and was a former catholic. I am aware of the abuses of the church. Thank God that we don't keep our eyes on or follow those who abuse the system and do not follow their faith. We keep our eyes on Jesus and deal with those who misinterpret or misuse Christianity for their own selfish desires. You can't judge a relgion based on its people (though you should be able to), you base it on it's foundation, which is Jesus Christ. To be turned off of Christianity because there are hypocrites in the church is shallow to say that least...

Originally posted by daisy
This is not a Christian site. I am anti-religion mongering on what is supposed to be a site that is not religiously affiliat

So what? Violence and bad language are talked about...Is this a filthy, immoral site? Politics are discussed...Is this a political site? Why do you judge or label the site based on it's many diverse discussions that occur on it? Be more tolerant and reasonable, Daisy.

[daisy]

sigh....I am very tolerant actually, but like I said, my only issue is that this is the Guild of Politics and if I wanted to get into religious debates I would visit the Guild of Religion and if I wanted to Role Play I would go to a Role Play thread etc. I just wonder why many political debates can't occur without Jesus coming into it....or the Bible...or whatever. And I don't know if it is anti-religion to not want to deal with religion. I do not visit art history sites because I don't have any interest in that ...or German architecture or whatever...so if this site veers into the realm of religious, primarily Christian content beyond the norm then maybe some people will want a re-focus on Tolkien....
And I didn't mean to blame all Christians for some kooks, I was using that as an example of how religion and law do not always, actually rarely mix, so when the Bible supposedly says hit your children to make them obey, Canadian law says nope. Same with capital punishment - it cannot be a religious issue in my mind because it is a legal, moral, human rights issue...that's all.

[Ciryaher]

As far as the New Testament in the Bible goes, capital and corporal punishments are frowned upon as vengeance (which is against the teachings of Christ, last time I checked).

Would you, daisy, take offence if a Jew or a Muslim were to come onto this thread and point out the religious points to their systems of punishment?

[daisy]

Not unless they droned on and on ad nauseum about it over and over again, slowly turning a political discussion into a somewhat exclusionary yack fest about their respective religious codes and written doctrines. I feel a yawn coming on even now....
Well, maybe the Wiccans....Wiccans can take over the whole site if they want because WICCANS ROCK..and also maybe Voodoo worshippers because I find that pretty interesting, the whole zombie thing and all....and maybe the Freemasons because they are all secretive and spooky....and the Raleians, you know, the people who think they are really aliens or children of aliens on Earth? I probably wouldn't get cranky if they showed up either.....But all of these people seem to separate their religious beliefs from discussions on web sites about other matters....hmmmm. interesting....

[Gloer]

Originally posted by daisy
And if you want to label yourself a sinner, go ahead Gloer, but don't think your religion gives you the right to label me as such or judge me. Judge not and all, eh?

I think best of you dear daisy, I might well believe you have never done anything unethical or wrong and i should think that too sinse I do not know you. We are all innocent until proven guilty.

There is nothing I can do about the christian view though: you are a sinner, sorry.

[Gloer]

The only debater on this thread that has said nothing on the theme - death penalty - is daisy. And she has posted six (6) posts.

That is very interesting.

Do you have anything to say in your defense daisy?

[Ciryaher]

Before this strays too far off topic, I'll let you know that Christian doctrine (whether you like it or not) has probably the greatest impact of modern society out of all the various religions, sects, and cults.

Most atheists and agnostics (the ones I know seem to have a bit more sense than some of the crackpot cultists scattered around the world) can hear the name "Christ" and "Jesus" and look at it objectively, just as they could think about "Mohammad" or "Abraham" or "Buddha" or "Lao-tzi." Why can't you bear to hear people speak their opinion from their religious perspective?

If a person can tie religious doctrine into their argument, that is their right, and regardless of how this bores you, they are free to discuss as they will, so long as it follows the rules of this forum.

-~-~-~-~-

Now, daisy, back up this claim that you made long ago:

There are children on death row in the United States of America.

If you please :)

[daisy]

Hey Cir, I advise you to check out Amnsesty International for that information - and the definition of children would be anyone under the age of eighteen who has nevertheless been tried in adult court - so this would be a young offender who has been sentenced. Amnesty is quite involved with this from what I recall, though I don't know their website. I also believe Unicef and the UN have looked into this as well. Also, if you factor in the mental age factor, meaning a person's equivalent mental capacity, then the number is higher, because, especially in Texas, there are inmates on death row who have very limited intellectual capacity. I myself have trouble knowing what to make of the whole young offender thing. Here in Ontario we have a young offender's act which limits sentence harshness and length for people under the age of sixteen. So, if a fifteen year old kills someone, unless the court petitions to try them as an adult, they will automatically be given a maximum sentence of I think eight years or something. Don't quote me. Although crazy sentences abound here in Ontario. Just last week, there were two sentencings reported on on the same page in the local newspaper. On one hand, an elderly grandfather who had deliberately started a fire that almost killed his four year old grandson, left horribly burned, was given a life sentence. On the flipside, a man who beat his wife to death with an axe, put her body in the trunk of the car and ditched it in a parking lot was given nine YEARs because he was allowed to plead to a lesser charge. He had already been in custody for a couple of years and will get that as time served. Uh....WHAT??? I was dumbfounded. And an ALbertan woman who left her two babies to die of starvation in apartment while she partied with her boyfriend ina nearby town was given EIGHT YEARS and will be out before she turns thirty. HUH???So if I kill my child I get eight years, but if I kill yours I get the death penalty or life in prison? What is that about? Yuck.
And GLoer, what is your point exactly that you need to chime in on? I have been very active in the Guild of Politics for almost a year and have posted a great deal - I don't think counting posts where I was responding to someone else's comments should count in your strangely perceptive tally...do you want to be my friend or something?

[Courtney]

First of all, I would like to apoligize to everyone here for my extremely rude and close-minded behavior. I want you to know that I do value your opinions, and I enjoy having intelligent debates with you... What can I say? Sometimes I am a jerk... I need to work on it...
Daisy, I have not heard or read about the cases you have mentioned, but I think some reasons behind different sentences is whether the accused had planned the murder, etc. But I agree with you, that it is rediculous that the man only received 9 years for a murder that extremely brutal. I hope he will recieve psychological help as well...

Oh, and please do not be upset with me. From now on, I intend to be perfectly logical and not jump to conclusions, or basically, I promise not to be a jerk. Thank you.

[Gloer]

well since you asked that - my point was that while i had been away for a few days you had come in the debate and turned the last pages into a debate over religion and wheather it is legitimate to have a religious angle on the subject matter at hand: the capitol punishment

there was boringly little you brought in that actually involved capitol punishment, ok, and at the same time you accused other like me and thorin being off topic... LOL :D

[daisy]

You know what I liked best about your post, Gloer? When you talked about being away for a few days. That was my favourite part!!! It made me feel all warm and googly inside. And Courtney, I don't recall you ever being a jerk on this thread at all.....so no apology necessary in my opinion. But how deep is this debate on capital punishment going to go...what are the alternatives to death or lifelong incarceration?

[Gloer]

The thought of me being away a few days makes you "warm and googly"?

[LadyGaladriel]

Thats actually pretty offensive to poor old Gloer.

Daisy - a bit of advice on this forum is not to make any personal attacks. i would have thought that with 300 posts you would have relised that . If you wanna contribute onto this thread why dont you actually say what you think about the subject?

p.s Guild of Politics for almost a year I think its only became active as such in a couple of months but I could be worng and I dont really recal any of your posts .

[daisy]

Anyway, back on track...what are some alternatives to capital punishment or lifelong incarceration? There are some aboriginal communities here in Canada who subscribe to an alternative which is basically like a healing circle or tribunal held in their own communities and uner their own laws. There is a huge over-representation of First
Nation males in our jails in terms of the size of their pver-all representative population. I don't have any data on how effective these Native Councils are in terms of people re-offending. And I don't know how I feel about it, but at least someone is trying to find other answers. Anything like this anywhere else?

[Courtney]

What about psychological help? I remember reading somewhere about this guy who has been in mental instituions most of his life for having committed a crime, and he was sueing the government because they out him there. He said he would have rather been in prison. I can't recall his name or anything, but I know he was from Illinios.

[Ciryaher]

I think that a particular prison in the American southeast (not sure if it's GA, MS, AL, or NC) has large crop fields that are tended to by the prisoners. I particularly like the idea of prisoner-labor as a form of rehabilitation. It's hard to describe, but it seems that when someone is doing hard, yet meaningful work, they tend to take pride in it and make themselves better people. Prisoners who are educated while they are incarcerated also seem to follow this trend. Religious instruction (whether it be Jewish, Christian, Islamic, etc.) gives prisoners spiritual guidance and will further their self-renewal.

However, I think that there are certain individuals who are maniacally sadistic who *cannot* be changed. The problem is that these individuals may falsify their rehabilitation, get out, and then cause mayhem. This is a very small percentage, but a very small number of people can cause hell for the rest.

(I hope that made sense...)

[Húrin Thalion]

Hi!

I would like to say that I am definetly against Capital punishment and life long prison terms. I even think that countries that execute it's citizen should be considered non democratic and embargoed if possible (US should not be excepted as some think). The reason is: Does anyone gain from death? It's horrible for the criminal but what really disgusts me is that some see it as a just PUNISHMENT, and warning for others!!! Prison is for rehabilitation of the sick persons that criminals are. You cannot take one's life simply to avenge someone that is already dead!!! That brings happiness to no one.

Elen

[LadyGaladriel]

Originally posted by Elen Carnë
Hi!

I would like to say that I am definetly against Capital punishment and life long prison terms. I even think that countries that execute it's citizen should be considered non democratic and embargoed if possible (US should not be excepted as some think). The reason is: Does anyone gain from death? It's horrible for the criminal but what really disgusts me is that some see it as a just PUNISHMENT, and warning for others!!! Prison is for rehabilitation of the sick persons that criminals are. You cannot take one's life simply to avenge someone that is already dead!!! That brings happiness to no one.

Elen

It does though . Its a warning to other people thinking of killing someone to think again.
Why should a prisoner be in prision for about 10 years then get out and start a family blah blah blah when the person that the killer killed cant never do those things.

[Húrin Thalion]

Because we who live in civilized countries see not crime as something tolerable but as a social disturbance. A criminal does not go to prison to be incarcerarated but to learn how to function as a part of society. Crime is no different from the styptoms a disease, the "virus" could be virtually anything but it is cetain that every time a crime is commited, our society has failed to help a sick person. I am not going to disscuss this warning thing but I might explain it. Why should someone alone suffer to warn others. Help is better than fear.

Elen

[LadyGaladriel]

If a person has taken someone else life then why shoould they still have one
The warning system works because it stops some crime.
Of course we should make example of some of the evil people out there because it DOES stop people.

[Húrin Thalion]

I ask again: What does anyone gain from murder, even if it's commited by a state. We seem to have quite different views of what crime really is Ladygaladriel. You are not different from someone else if you are a criminal, why should you be deprived of what you hold dearest? Why shouldn't you be given a chance to better yourself? You are not borne as a criminal, you are shaped as one by this cold society. Let the peoples who value EVERYBODY'S lives the same teach thos who don't, for example Iraq America and all other dark nations.

Elen

[LadyGaladriel]

so your saying that even if a criminal has murdered someone whose life may just be starting you belive that they should get a couple of years then get out again? Even though that person may have never done anything wrong and was in the wrong time and wrong place?
Look someone these criminals are evil. They will get out and start again . somepeople even are addicted to Murder. I want to walk down my street or catch my bus home without glancing over my shouder every couple of miniutes.
Criminals who has done awfull things deserve to die. They deserve it. they have taken away someone else life so we can give justice back to that victims Family and friends by taking away the murderers.

[Húrin Thalion]

Who deserves to die? Are you the one deal out death and judgement?
And if you are interested in your own safety I would suggest that you should start helping criminals before they commit crimes. Death is final, not just another punishment. Help don't kill!!!

Elen

[Húrin Thalion]

Does another murder bring someone back from the dead? Does that give happiness to the first victims friends? If you help the criminal back to a better life that may comfort the victims family in some way, at least if they have got any sympathy. You are not born to a killer, you are shaped to one.

Elen

[LadyGaladriel]

Originally posted by Elen Carnë
Who deserves to die? Are you the one deal out death and judgement?
And if you are interested in your own safety I would suggest that you should start helping criminals before they commit crimes. Death is final, not just another punishment. Help don't kill!!!
Elen


I can not foresee these people. I think that the Death Penalty stops a hell of alot of crime. Im not saying to deal it out whenever you want to but simply that if this person is a pyscopath then yes I think he should die to help ease the suffering of the Family by knowing that justice has been done

[Húrin Thalion]

"Justice has been done"? Is it just to slay one for the comfort of another?
I cannot help noticing that you have changed your point of view, now it's about psychopaths and not common criminals. I have an answer to that too, if someone mentally ill our first task is to heal, not opt for vengeance. If the damages are irrepairable, let us all give him/her a worthy life, protected and guarded!
Am I right?

Elen

[LadyGaladriel]

I have always thought that Capital Punsihment is only appicable for servere crimes like Murder.
There is a difference between Mentally Ill and Criminally Insane!
everyone could start saying that they were insane ect.

[Thorin]

Elen, your views are noble, but irresponsible and near utopian.
First of all, yes, prison should be for rehabilitation, but it is also a punishment, and should be. You are lumping all criminals (let's say, people who have done a crime), into one category. They are not. You cannot compare a desperate father who kidnaps his son from his abusive mother because he can't get custody, to a serial child murderer. Why even imprison the first one? What "rehabilitation" does he really need to experience? He is being punished. That is why. He is suffering the consequences for breaking the law of the land.

There are serious consequences for taking someone's life. The state should not take that lightly. What kind of message does it send to others to commit a ghastly, child murder and then only go to some sort of reman centre for "rehabilitiation" only to be let out after a few cushy years? How has this person been punished? The second example, the serial child murderer has no real hope of even being rehabilitated. He is being taken off the streets and put away as a punishment and for other's safety. Nothing more, and nothing more should be expected.

Our prison systems aren't prone to rehabilitation. People go in and come out twice as bad as before. Drugs, violence, rape, extortion...All are common place and most criminals go in to bide do their time so they can come out and begin their criminal life again.

And I'm sorry, when you take a life in cold blood, you have forfeited your own right to live. It is the only fair way to deal out retributive justice.

[Húrin Thalion]

First of all I would like to apologize to you for using wrong expression in my last post, I meant criminally insane. Then I do not think of murder as either symptom or disease but as both. By the way I admire your persistence LadyGaladriel!

I would like to say that Thorin argumented well but there is a misunderstanding between us. I don't see murder as something wrong that the state should take lightly but I must repeat that if you are always criminally insane when you commit a murder. You may be driven to that state of insanity by many things and your state is not very good at eliminating these but rather creates them. We are all partly responsible when someone that we know kills someone. Another thing is my reasoning is entirely about murder. A father who kidnaps his children must prove in court that he had good reasons to do so but he must still take the blame for breaking the law, even if it was not made for such situations.

I admit that your prison system does not function effciently but in America you have chosen to exchange profitabiliy for welfare.

Your last note is the easiest to answer, in fact I would say that it ruined an otherwise excellent post. To say that you can punish anyone with death just to get revenge is to sink yourself down to the level of small children who does not know what they're talking about. I do not even see that it is worth answering

Elen

[LadyGaladriel]

Originally posted by Elen Carnë
First of all I would like to apologize to you for using wrong expression in my last post, I meant criminally insane. Then I do not think of murder as either symptom or disease but as both. By the way I admire your persistence LadyGaladriel!

I would like to say that Thorin argumented well but there is a misunderstanding between us. I don't see murder as something wrong that the state should take lightly but I must repeat that if you are always criminally insane when you commit a murder. You may be driven to that state of insanity by many things and your state is not very good at eliminating these but rather creates them. We are all partly responsible when someone that we know kills someone. Another thing is my reasoning is entirely about murder. A father who kidnaps his children must prove in court that he had good reasons to do so but he must still take the blame for breaking the law, even if it was not made for such situations.

I admit that your prison system does not function effciently but in America you have chosen to exchange profitabiliy for welfare.


BTW I think you are debating well

Your last note is the easiest to answer, in fact I would say that it ruined an otherwise excellent post. To say that you can punish anyone with death just to get revenge is to sink yourself down to the level of small children who does not know what they're talking about. I do not even see that it is worth answering

Elen


In actual fact I think that Thorins last note was an excellent conclusion to his clear post.
Is Justice revenge or not?
If you have killed someone you have stopped their right to live so therefore your should be stopped.
I can see another way against the Capital Punsihment and that is that the killer should be left to rot. However you belive that there shouldn;t be such things. Hold on a minuite do you think that a cold blooded murderer should be let out after a coupe of years when a lifetime has been taken away from the victim?
Death is the best punishment.

[Húrin Thalion]

It's getting tiresome to explain this over and over again. Now I would like you to answer the questions I have asked over and over again: Who gains from the execution? Who becomes happier? What about the relatives of the executed criminal?

Elen

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Elen Carnë
Now I would like you to answer the questions I have asked over and over again: Who gains from the execution? Who becomes happier? What about the relatives of the executed criminal?

Elen

The situation a brutal murderer has put us in is a NO-WIN, unhappy situation no matter which way you look at it. At the best, the killer lives with the remorse for his crime for the rest of his life and lives the full life that was owed to his victim he so callously took the life of, and the victim's family must go on in grief. At worst, the criminal shows no remorse and goes out to kill again, while the victim's family still mourns So the question comes into play. Who's rights should be catered to? The victim's.

If the victim's rights are favored over the criminal, then we must realize that that victim's right to live has been taken away from him. Dying in a state sanctioned war, or paying with your life for a crime cannot be compared to selfishly and cold-bloodedly stealing an innocent's life. No one of the common people has the right to steal the life of an innocent person (unless it is in self-defense). Therefore, the punishment of taking that life must be retributive. That is at least OWED to that person and to that person's family.

I vandalise property, I pay for the damages. I steal from someone, I replace it. I intentionally kill someone, I forfeit my own life. Retributive justice is sometimes all we can do and all we have, even if it may not make sense to some.

[Húrin Thalion]

You say it is a no-win but let us then not increase the damage but heal as much as can be healed. I say no ones life can be forfeit whatever you have done. Still I wonder how the victim's rights are helped through an execution? If his family feels better then I would suggest that you give them the same help as the criminal should have been given! It feels like this conversation is a stalemate. Could you give me an example of a truly democratic state that executes people?

Elen

[Húrin Thalion]

By the way, can't we set up a poll about this?

Elen

[LadyGaladriel]

If you really want a poll set up you can ask one of the mods.

Put yourself in the situation of the victims family. A person that they see everyday and love dearly has been killed in cold blood by a murderer.
This murderer is proven without any doubt at all that this is the murderer.
This murderer is perfectly sane and actually quite reasonable. He is sent down.

A couple of years later this murderer says "Im a normal person again Let me out." out he goes and kills another happy innocent person.

Are you saying that this is justice?

Prision is not a place for only rehabilitation but also as a punishment. The Family and friends feel justice if this evil person is killed. As Thorin said as soon as that Murderer killed someone he forfeited hi own life.

You get out of it a satisfaction that this Murderer will not commit it again.

[Húrin Thalion]

It seems that we value human life a little different. To me all human life is equally worth, even murderers lives. You have still not given me an example of a truly democratic country that executes people?

Elen

[LadyGaladriel]

Originally posted by Elen Carnë
It seems that we value human life a little different. To me all human life is equally worth, even murderers lives. You have still not given me an example of a truly democratic country that executes people?

Elen





You could say America. But then what is democracy . Is there such a thing?

We are also not talking about Democracy but the moralistic factors and rationalization factors of Capital Punishment

[Húrin Thalion]

I would say that democracy is when all the country's citizens have the right and the POSSIBILITY to vote, everybody is respected and treated equally, everybody has the right to a juste trial in court and a lot of other stuff we all agree on. I would from this description say that America is democratic but not fully. Has all Americans the possibility to vote?

Elen

P.S For me this is a trick question, nations that execute people aren't democratic but thats my opinion.

[LadyGaladriel]

Originally posted by Elen Carnë
I would say that democracy is when all the country's citizens have the right and the POSSIBILITY to vote, everybody is respected and treated equally, everybody has the right to a juste trial in court and a lot of other stuff we all agree on. I would from this description say that America is democratic but not fully. Has all Americans the possibility to vote?

Elen

P.S For me this is a trick question, nations that execute people aren't democratic but thats my opinion.


Every"sane"body can vote within Liminatations. Criminals, Mentally Ill and Young people cant vote In my country.

Why should a Criminal be able to vote when he hasn't obeyed the rules of Soceity and that present Government. He has no rights to say who should be in power if he disobeyed humane laws.

[Húrin Thalion]

The problem is that people living on your minimum wage cannot afford to miss a day at work even if their sick. As the elections are seldom or never held at holidays they simply can't vote. This is why so few can vote in your country. In Sweden we have one election every fourth years the third Sunday in september. Despite this only 80% voted in the elections last month.

Concerning capital punishment I would like to cheer you for your arguments that I cannot agree with you on. Still I have learned a lot but I shall now withdraw fom this discussion because I see it impossible to get any further with this. Let's agree upon disagreeing!

Elen

[LadyGaladriel]

If you want to stop the debate then sure we will agree to disagree. I have leant much also



p.s Go Capital Punsihment Go!

[Húrin Thalion]

Don't think that i'll give up after that P.S!!!

I'll never give up but I cannot think of anything smashy now for I am weary and want to go to sleep.
Good night everybody!

Elen

[Ciryaher]

It is a federal law within the United States that your employer *must* allow you to go vote. If they do not, a lawsuit with severe punishments can be filed.

There are no democracies in the world, and if there are, they aren't very successful. A democracy is defined as a government in which every single decision is decided by every voter within that nation. A democracy is an extremely inefficient method of government, and I don't see how one could even hope to get anywhere.

Back to the subject at hand...some criminals *can't* be rehabilitated. If you had a man that kills children and eats their corpses (or worse), then can you seriously tell me that this man could be rehabilitated? Can you seriously tell me that a twisted and purely evil mass of flesh such as that deserves to live? We don't even have to go that far with an example. Serial or brutal murderers should have the greatest thing they have (and do not value) taken away from them.

As for one-time murderers, they should have no less than a lifetime of hard labor. If they improve themselves, then that is good, but they shouldn't be left out. By ending another person's freedom to live and be happy, and by taking away their family's loved one, they have forfeited their right to live in freedom. I think that hard work and a construction of a faith within a higher power are the best ways to rehabilitate a person. Give them something to live for, and to know that even though their peers have condemned them, that they may receive salvation through a higher power.

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by LadyGaladriel
Every"sane"body can vote within Liminatations. Criminals, Mentally Ill and Young people cant vote In my country.

Why should a Criminal be able to vote when he hasn't obeyed the rules of Soceity and that present Government. He has no rights to say who should be in power if he disobeyed humane laws.

Hmmm -- I would tend to disagree with you that a person who has committed criminal actions should never be allowed to vote again. I believe that this should depend upon the type of act, as well as the recency.

There are a lot of people out there who have, at one point or another in their lives, committed criminal actions, been caught, done their time, and are now productive citizens. To deny these individuals the right to vote would be, in effect, continuing to punish them for their crime after they have already served their time.

Besides, if we were really going to have a law saying that criminals shouldn't be able to vote, wouldn't we want to keep an ex-cocaine sniffing, DUI receiving, corporate opportunist (Harkin Energy) out of the presidency...?

If one is against allowing ex-criminals to vote, surely one is also against allowing ex-criminals to run for political candidacy?

[Courtney]

I don't think she meant that once you commit a crime you should never be allowed to vote again. I think she only meant during the course of their punishment they should not be allowed to vote.

[Tyaronumen]

Ah, well that makes sense, definitely. :) I guess I thought she meant permanently because there are several states now in the U.S. that don't allow people who have been convicted of a felony to vote...

[LadyGaladriel]

sorry. I ll just clean up . I meant that if you are serving your sentence then you aren't allowed to vote

[Asha'man]

Jeez, I've been out of this particular section of TTF for a while. Anyway, I saw this on a t-shirt a few days ago.

"When's the last time you saw a murderer escape from a cemetery?"

Can't argue with logic.

Asha'man

[Thorin]

Originally posted by LadyGaladriel
I meant that if you are serving your sentence then you aren't allowed to vote

And lo and behold, if the Supreme Court of Canada just ruled a few days ago that prisoners do have the right to vote, thus overturning a long held law....Where's the justice for the victims these days?

Do you realize that here in BC, at least, that if a criminal breaks into my home and hurts himself on my fireplace or something, that he can charge me? If I defend myself against an intruder, I can be charged with assault? It's sick, that's what it is...Our judicial system is the laughing stock of the world because we are so lax on criminals and so persecuting of the innocent victims of crime.

[Húrin Thalion]

You must think of another possibility, that the courts can be wrong! I mean if you execute an innocent person what are you gonna do when you discover he's innocent? Kill the jury, the judge and the governor?

Elen

[LadyGaladriel]

with all the forensic evidence we have now adays they could match anything back to you.
Im not saying to kill anyone with one bit of evidence but If we are sure then I say we should. Its pure Justice.

[Húrin Thalion]

But people are still judged innocent sometimes. What are you gonna do when it happens?

Elen

PS: I'm just gonna add THE most cynical joke in history: I was afraid that this discussion had been executed! Frowns at the lousy joke:p

[LadyGaladriel]

Originally posted by Elen Carnë
But people are still judged innocent sometimes. What are you gonna do when it happens?

Elen

PS: I'm just gonna add THE most cynical joke in history: I was afraid that this discussion had been executed! Frowns at the lousy joke:p



Im saying that If there is no reasonable doubt that this person was the murderer or if they have confessed it then they should die. If there is a chance that they weren't the right one then they should be held in prision for a mazimum of say 6 months while the police investigate.

[Húrin Thalion]

Predictable, too predictable... ;)

Still there are cases when the real killer is not discovered after then years or more. What are you gonna do when you have executed someone that isn't guilty?

Elen

[LadyGaladriel]

look Im not saying kill someone if you have a feeling its them. If you KNOW its them and that the evidence points straight them or If They confess then I say that Capital Punishment is the ulitmate punishment.

Throin - I know what you mean Thats just really Sick. I thought there was a law however that if a murderer come at you with a weapon in your own home u have the right to kill them?

[Húrin Thalion]

Are you ever sure?

And can you trust all comfessions? In Sweden we have person who claims that he has killed 15 kids and been convicted for several of those
murders . Still no one knows if his guilty, lots of experts say that the confessions are false and he has been given closed psychiatrich treatment. Sould you execute that man?

Elen

[LadyGaladriel]

Originally posted by Elen Carnë
Are you ever sure?

And can you trust all comfessions? In Sweden we have person who claims that he has killed 15 kids and been convicted for several of those
murders . Still no one knows if his guilty, lots of experts say that the confessions are false and he has been given closed psychiatrich treatment. Sould you execute that man?

Elen
1)you do get some utter cracks out there that want fame/respect for doing horrible things which they haven't done
2)With forensic evidence scientists are normally totally sure that this person is the killer. They can match a hair to him/her

[Húrin Thalion]

Normally but not always. You must admit that there are still cases where someone is judged wrong. If the supposed killer knew the murdered one his hair would have been all over the place for example.

Elen

[LadyGaladriel]

Originally posted by Elen Carnë
Normally but not always. You must admit that there are still cases where someone is jud