Printable View
So you don't like native americans much, Yvonne? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Yvonne183
Seriously, I can't agree with your statement that people, evil though they may be, "need to be killed". For what purpose? If they're locked away for life and the public is protected, what additional measurable benefit does society actually gain by strangling, frying or gassing them? And yes, I am picking on the most violent and gruesome methods to make a point.
she meant grey squirrels!Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
keep squirrels red!
I've searched, but I can't find a pic of a squirrel in a Liverpool shirt, sorry. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by SammiValentine
This'll have to do.....
get down to formby la !
I too oppose the death penalty. The first of Robert's reasons is sufficient.Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
The second argument does seem to establish reasonable expectations from "Christian" nations that claim consistency with the principles of Christianity. The U.S. (my home) is, however, not a Christian nation and so the argument doesn't really apply.
Arguments likening the death penalty to revenge I find pretty weak, on the grounds that "justice" IS in fact sometimes "revenge." "Justice" derives from "to make even." When you justify your margins you're evening them out so that you can lay a ruler along them and touch each line of print. Just laws are laws that promote equality and level the playing fields. When those laws are broken the balance is disturbed. The aim of just jurisprudence is to restore balance, as much as is possible.
There is no absolute evil, no sin and no divine or metaphysically moral imperative that says this person needs to be killed. Nor is there any such imperative that stipulates killing is wrong. In this universe, on this planet humans do all the stipulating. The need to impose penalties comes from the need to restore balance to broken lives. Only we can know what actions will most closely approximate such a restoration. The argument that there is no absolute need to kill a murderers is no more or less valid than the argument that it is absolutely wrong to kill a murderer. The argument that there is no purpose to killing a murderer ignores the purpose of justice__to even things out. The argument that there is a purpose to killing a murderer, presumes that that purpose is a sufficient cause for right action. None of these arguments really help decide the question.
But luckily, we only need one argument that works. The finality of death penalty requires certitude of guilt, which we almost never have.
murder goes against Christian teachings so it is wrong to take a killers life
Jesus was executed for sedition. But regardless, I have a problem taking seriously, righteous indignation about state execution by a nation who claims their "moral authority" from human sacrifice. :)
I don't like the idea of vengeance (or as it's so euphemistically stated these days, "justice for the victim") as a primary reason for execution. But there are people who go out of their way to forfeit any claim to be thought of as people. They're not worth the trouble or danger to keep them alive.
To repeat: "Some people just need killing."
any country which professes to be Christian or to uphold Christian values should not revert to the Old Testament stance of "an eye for an eye". That is revenge, not justice
The concept of 'an for an eye' was not meant as a literal act, but proportionality, to 'balance' out a crime -if A steals a goat from B, he should either get his goat back, or another goat. This works fine until murder is committed -there is a long and complex tradition of 'blood revenge' among the Bedouin of Arabia, who realised a long time ago that if someone from Tribe a kills someone from Tribe B in revenge for a former killing, and if this killing is not considered just by Tribe B, an endless cycle of 'revenge' killings would then ensure and, theoretically or actually leave noone left apart from some innocent children and their grandparents. So qualifying acts were then introduced -contrition and remorse on the part of the perpetrator, the award of precious belongings from the murderer's tribe to the victim -in an age and economy where giving up these things would be a genuine loss- and so on. Unfortunately, in the modern age, a rise in population and particularly gun ownership has meant that 'blood revenge' in Upper Egypt, Iraq and Syria is probably beyond the strict -and accepted- morals that were practised by the 'noble' Bedu of yore.
More pertinent, is that taking another life causes great trauma -most serving soldiers will tell you this, very few ever relish killing another person, and those that do are usually considered a bit unhinged by their comrades.
The burden of proof in murder trials is of critical importance -it may be that OJ Simpson did murder his wife and her boyfriend, but the evidence presented in court did not satisfy the jury; by contrast, African Americans accused of murder tend to be found guilty on the evidence even when it may be one item -of clothing, of a sighting by a witness, and so on.
Trish, I asked you if you think Freedom is more important than Life...the difference between Justice and Revenge is that one is considered to be a balanced assessment of disputed claims, often by a disinterested third party, where revenge is retaliation and usually considered an emotional, even an irrational act -as when someone takes revenge on another without first confirming that the victim was responsible- and therefore, Justice and Revenge are wholly different.
All the major religions of the world are against the death penalty
I am just curious then. If a man was to enter your home and he killed your family and was standing in front of you, would you not want to kill him? Or would you just rush to the nearest phone and call the police?
How about if your country was being attacked, would you not kill the invading people's? Let's say the attacking soldiers stopped their attack, would you hope for the police to arrest them and bring them to justice and given life sentences or would you kill them before they did any more damage?
What I was saying is that there will be times when one will have to kill someone whether it be on a personal level, being a soldier or being the state. I am sorry but if Hitler was to have not killed himself he should have been executed.
I am not a christian so I don't care what the bible says.
Whether execution is a deterrent or not is nothing I care about. I do believe in vengeance and anyone that does real evil should be put to death. No other opinion can sway me.
Every country of the world puts people to death, even the UK is murdering Libyans as I type this, the Libyans are not even getting a trial, they are just being murdered from the skies. Even if the Libyans were doing really evil things, according to death penalty opponents they should not be murdered for their evil.