Posted on 01/28/2014 12:56:48 PM PST by Second Amendment First
Genesis 9:6 English Standard Version (ESV) 6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.
How about tied up in a gunnysack and pitched in the lake?
Wrong 'eye' for payment.
? Countless personal and professional examples testify to the fact that there is only one way victims of savagery can recover from the hurt and angst of victimization: forgiveness
Agree, for the survivors. Justice is within the purview of the state, where there is the death penalty, that judgement has been made. The state has to need of forgiveness as an impersonal entity.
- What about the cost? Oh, OK well I guess there is such thing as killing for convenience, but let's take another tack which hits directly at our medieval penal system: prisoners should be productive and at least pay their way in prison.
So the argument that has merit that you don't refute is deflected to another pipe dream.
Clever, but doesn’t refute the argument against unjust capital punishment.
Thanks, but of course Genesis 9:6 was fulfilled on the cross of Christ 2000 years ago.
Haven’t seen much refutation here.
Depends on how you're qualifying the question: if you are considering being a productive member of society (which can quickly degrade into evaluating a person's worth on cost/value) -- perhaps.
If you're talking strictly about the legal world, which this thread would indicate, then yes.
>> it is also unjust to make a man forever pay for his crime (like denying him all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of a citizen) even after serving his sentence...The only right way to do it is to make the death one of relative speed and some dignity
>
> Now that's a new one I haven't seen before. Interesting and creative but I'm pretty sure there's nothing in criminal law that states that as a reason for capital punishment. No, but that's an argument similar to taking the life of a baby, elderly, or infirmed because someone in their manifest great wisdom has decreed it's better for them to die. God has given individuals the right to life, which is sacred.
I don't agree with the last part; but it is true that there are things which cannot be restored — we can never give life to the murdered or to eradicate/rebuild what despoilment the raped experienced.
The great injustice that we see in our legal system today are those that society has been brainwashed to think are just. Take, for example, some people expressing a that's what he deserves
-attitude toward the raped in prison. (Rape is evil and wrong, period. *mdash; There is no way that true justice can, by nature, involve the unjust. [It can be terrible.]) That people accept that a felon, having served his sentence, can still be deprived of rights is an injustice that weakens the power of those rights for everyone. Take, for example, the mandatory minimum sentences for drug charges — sometimes the amounts are so small that it is likely it was planted [and the behavior of the police certainly doesn't engender trust].
In the end, we do great injustice by making our system incapable of meting out swift and severe [restorative] retribution* — there are no ways to have a punishment be done and over… it's always the extraction of years and years of life.
* Something like, say, a whipping for insubordination or a single moment of indiscretion [in the military] could be done and over and let everyone get back to life… instead, there's really only two modes: slap-on-the-wrist and heavy-handed punishment (like being busted in rank, from something that literally took years to achieve).
Look, I had a rough childhood, teen years, and had been robbed of my twenties because of controlling abusers. Like them, I was presented with a lot of choices to choose evil. I had a TON of them presented to me when I was technically homeless, living in adult foster care in a ghetto. I chose the hard way, the way that would keep me from going from bad to worse.
Talk to anyone who had a rough childhood, but managed to avoid committing crimes and hurting other people.
A lot of killers don’t have bad childhoods, or parents, or people who hurt or neglect them. Some of them turn horrendously rotten despite all the advantages to lead a clean life.
I do know that trials should be conducted like forensic examinations and heavy penalties for giving false witness and the State should certainly be liable if an innocent person is executed.
Libs rarely see anything new, just the same old same old no surprise. You make assertions, not arguments.
I spent a ton of time on California’s death row. You should try it. I came away, even more in favor of the death penalty. BTW, most inmates DO work in the joint. Sorry pop, I don’t buy the anti death penalty thing.
“Retribution” and “punishment” serve no just or legitimate purpose. Again, your acts, my acts, the criminal’s acts, and everyone else’s acts were totally paid for, punished and condemned on the cross of Christ 2000 years ago. So punishment is double jeopardy. Therefore, punishment is an illegitimate and unjust purpose in the penal system. The legitimate purpose of dealing with dangerous criminals is incarceration to protect society from danger.
I give you assertions and reasons for my assertions. You give nothing.
Experience doesn’t refute moral and legal truth like the injustice of double jeopardy. Nevertheless, I’m curious why you came away from death row in favor of the death penalty.
“Nitrogen asphyxiation.”
In a high pressure chamber, then suddenly reduce the pressure to atmospheric.
Hemlock tea worked for Socrates.
Its free, it works, and its humane.
Just ask Socrates. He described his own death as painless and easy.
Energy efficient and ‘green’ too!
I was always in favor of it. I had to deal with them on a personal level. I talked to them face to face. I read their files. I spent the majority of my time with GP. I read their files too. I thought a substantial amount of them should have been on the "row" also. The death penalty is not meant to be revenge, though some may think it is. It is not meant to be a deterrent, but if it does that, it is ok too. It is meant to be punishment.
You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. I just don't agree with it. Later bro.
It goes back to the middle ages, where private wars, or feuds were frequent. A nobleman, or notable, would hold court and render justice. As the common law caught on, a judge would take over from these manorial courts, and so the power and prestige of the king was behind the decision. IAC, I think that the death penalty should stand in exceptional cases, and for convicts who kill other convicts.
The most effective way to protect society is to remove the offenders.
Permanently.
Your argument simply doesn't work.
What’s wrong with using hungry dogs?
Love, Dennis
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.