50 replies to this topic

[SteveT]

Simple: the people recieving the death penalty actually did something wrong. The unborn, however, are innocents. Thus, these peopel are very consistant: protect the innocent, screw teh guilty.

EDIT: Unless of course the system failed.

[GraniteJJ]

Its amazing that Christians can believe such a way, considering they are always preaching equality on the grounds that only God can judge people. And yet, humans take into their hands who can live and who can die.

Awfully arrogant of us, wouldn't you say?

[SteveT]

Hence seperation of church and state. The state's got to keep order somehow,doesn't it?

[GraniteJJ]

Originally posted by SteveT@Sep 19 2004, 03:52 PM
Hence seperation of church and state.  The state's got to keep order somehow,doesn't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know, but I mean by their own beliefs. If they are Christian, how can they bring themselves to condemn people to death. Seperation of church and state stops policy being made on the basis of religion, but people can still make choices based on religion. So, some judge is still sentencing criminals to death and ignoring the higher up (being God).

I may seem incoherent, but it is 4 PM and I haven't eaten anything since around this time yesterday.

So long.

[SteveT]

Well, I personally take the seperation further than that. When it's a matter of state, I think entirely from a state perspective. (At least to the best of my abilities.) And likewise for moral issues.

[arunma]

Well as Tanaka would say, I'm pro-life because I like life and stuff.

[GraniteJJ]

Originally posted by TanakaBros06@Sep 19 2004, 05:01 PM
Yes, it is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you are agreeing with me that Christians, when judging someone for the death sentence, are being especially arrogant on account of the fact that only God can judge people?

[SteveT]

Is it really so strange for someone to want to keep the innocent alive and permanantly remove dangerous felons from society?

About the judging issue: That is generally more related to judging someone's soul. That is, trying to tell whether or not someone is worthy of Heaven. The death penalty is determining whether or not someone is worthy of Earth. Yes, the death penalty is a very extreme punishment, and must be used with extreme caution, but sometimes it's the only way to remove very dangerous and deranged people from society.

[GraniteJJ]

Originally posted by SteveT@Sep 19 2004, 07:35 PM
Is it really so strange for someone to want to keep the innocent alive and permanantly remove dangerous felons from society?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. Because humanity cannot judge humanity, and then go and take the lives of humanity. Christians are SUPPOSED to believe that.

Also, Jesus preached against the whole "an eye for an eye" didn't he? So, executing (killing) someone because they may have killed someone else is against the Christian ... code.

Earth belongs to God as much as heaven.

And the death penalty isn't the only way to remove them from society. Just keep them removed from society. I.E. Maximum Security Imprisonment with no parole.

[SteveT]

I addressed that in an edit above.

[GraniteJJ]

I replied with two edits above...

[SteveT]

Also, Jesus preached against the whole "an eye for an eye" didn't he? So, killing someone because they killed someone is against the Christian ... code.

Yes, but in the cases of death penalties I would actually support, it's more like "an eye for refridgerator full of eyes." To me, you have to do something amazingly psychopathic and evil to be worthy of the death penalty, and your guilt must be proved beyond a doubt. It's too permanent and severe a punishment to be used lightly.

Earth belongs to God as much as heaven.

Yes, it does, so let's take care of it, shall we?

And the death penalty isn't the only way to remove them from society. Just keep them removed from society. I.E. Maximum Security Imprisonment with no parole.

Personally, I don't enjoy having my tax money going to feed and provide cable for serial killers and repeat-offender rapists. I also don't care for paying to keep them locked up with other people that they will probably abuse.

[GraniteJJ]

Severely dangerous criminals are usually put into solitary confinement...unless somehow they ended up in the worst funded maximum security prison ever.

But, when it comes to your specifications on uses, I suppose I'm inclined to agree.

And if you recall, before LA went down, Alak established that executing people is more expensive than imprisonment...

[Alakhriveion]

I did?

I mean... yeah... I sure did...

[GraniteJJ]

Originally posted by Alakhriveion@Sep 19 2004, 07:52 PM
I did?

I mean... yeah... I sure did...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Er...I thought it was you. Someone gave us all these statistics. If you don't want to take credit....then I WILL!

Muahaha.!

[SteveT]

In the cases I've specified, it's worth the extra money. Like I said, the death penalty should be reserved for very serious, remorseless, repeated offenses, and only when the person is certainly guilty.

[GraniteJJ]

Originally posted by SteveT@Sep 19 2004, 08:18 PM
In the cases I've specified, it's worth the extra money.  Like I said, the death penalty should be reserved for very serious, remorseless, repeated offenses, and only when the person is certainly guilty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, but those of us who think that way are fewer than those who don't think that way, and especially fewer than those that don't think at all.

[SteveT]

Unfortunately.

[Coltxdoom]

mm thank you Steve T. I couldn't agree with you more on all accounts. ^-^;

[Oberon Storm]

Originally posted by GraniteJJ@Sep 19 2004, 06:50 PM
And if you recall, before LA went down, Alak established that executing people is more expensive than imprisonment...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is only expensive because of appeals. If the process was a bit more stream lined it wouldn't be a problem.

[GraniteJJ]

Originally posted by Chief Fire Storm@Sep 19 2004, 11:12 PM
It is only expensive because of appeals. If the process was a bit more stream lined it wouldn't be a problem.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You just want a conveyor belt dropping inmates into magma, don't you?

[SteveT]

Make it an escalator leading up to the mouth of a volcano, and you have a deal.

[Oberon Storm]

No really. The system needs to be reformed. Which in itself would cost lots of money. Each case needs to be looked at individually to make sure we do not have innocent people on death row. But like I said, that costs money and there are lots of people on death row. A case by case analysis would take somewhere around forever. Of course if DNA evidence is available it would help. But DNA isn't available in all cases. And the process just needs to made quicker. I wish it were possible to give the convict his appeals but not let those appeals back the system up.

Another thing that might help is to not condem every killer that goes through court. It needs to be saved for the most heinous acts. After all, capital punishment isn't much of a deterrent when it is a crime of passion.

[arunma]

Originally posted by mysticdragon13@Sep 20 2004, 11:20 PM
I would like to see the death penalty used only when the killer admits to commiting the act and has no remorse. That way you take out the whole inocence factor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But often times, police force people to make confessions.

[SteveT]

Like during the Inquisition.

And no, that isn't meant to maket he practice out to be archaic, because it isn't.