|
Post by amoyensis on Dec 11, 2005 5:15:44 GMT -5
Right but... I answered 'No' to your question...
|
|
Death Adder
Junior Member
The Wizard of the Code
Posts: 65
|
Post by Death Adder on Dec 11, 2005 10:48:45 GMT -5
I am completely against the death penalty. For one, I believe that Christianity teaches total redemption, not partial. If scriptures tell us to forgive others as God forgave us, then how can we rightfully say 'OK, we forgive you... but you're still getting the lethal injection'? That's extremely simple. Punishment is not the same as forgiveness. You can forgive your children for doing something wrong and STILL punish them because that's what they deserve. It's a fallacy to assume that you can not punish someone who you forgive. If that were so then we'd have no one in jail because we forgave them all. Once again you are taking things way too far. Should there be no one in prison then because we shouldn't throw the first stone? You can't take a Biblical story about forgiveness and extrapolate it mean anything you want. I'm sorry... I mentioned fate a whole one time... You are missing my point. My point is that God does NOT choose when we die. We do that and so does nature. We can kill ourselves. Do you think God planned that? We could get cancer. Do you want to blame that on God too?
|
|
Death Adder
Junior Member
The Wizard of the Code
Posts: 65
|
Post by Death Adder on Dec 11, 2005 10:55:37 GMT -5
oh, and death adder...: you said nature has the decision for when or how a person will die. Well, did God not create nature? did he not make the oceans, the heavens, and everything else that coexists in our world? It would almost seem fit to say God is nature, you can find him everywhere in it... well yes, i just realized that may have been totally off topic, lol, but what i was getting at was that it may seem just instantaneous when we all of a sudden die, but i think God consciously knows how and when and where we are going to die. If its fair to say he knew our parents and where we would be born at, i think its fair to say God knows the same about our death. That's just my opinion though, and I'm not sure it made too much sense.... lol, but whatever... You are running into the same problem as Amoyensis. If God created nature and God is nature and controls how it goes then I'm pretty mad that he chose to give several members of my family cancer. And I'm pretty ticked that he let young children walk out into the road to get hit by a car. God does NOT sit around all day every day controlling every little nitpicky detail in the whole wide world. He lets the natural laws of nature run nature. Sometimes bad things happen and sometimes people make bad choices. All of that has absolutely NOTHING to do with God whatsoever. Just because he knows when we'll die does not mean he was involved in the circumstances of it. With the death penalty society is deciding that a person has committed an offense that is punishable by nothing less than death. This is a decision that a society has to make. Some crimes are just so bad that there is no other fitting punishment. Where in the heck was all your compassion when the criminal did there crime in the first place? Where was all this bleeding heart talk when a man raped a little girl and set her on fire? What about that little girl's life? Where is your outrage at the man's lack of respect for HER life? Since when is his life worth more than hers?
|
|
Death Adder
Junior Member
The Wizard of the Code
Posts: 65
|
Post by Death Adder on Dec 11, 2005 11:04:07 GMT -5
You brought up the tax money thing. It actually costs more money to put someone on death row than to give them a life sentence in prison, because if someone is put on death row, they can appeal their sentence to every level of the justice system (i.e. they can start low and work their way up all the way to the supreme court, no matter how much evidence is stacked against them), thus (a) delaying their penalty, and (b) using lots more tax dollars in the legal system. Which is why our legal system needs to be changed. I hereby offer my services for free. I'll buy the 44 magnum and the bullets. It's only about 40-50 cents a bullet. I'll even travel prison to prison and do my deed. One shot to the head and it's over CHEAP. There should be one appeal allowed and only then if it's on good grounds. NO automatic appeals! Nothing other than one appeal if there was a good reason! After that it's me w/ a 44mag. I guarentee that would really cheapen up death row. No. I'd want them to be put in jail and have psychological treatment.[/quote] I'm sorry but you would want no such thing and you darn well know it. Let's see what you'd really do or want if you had a daugher and she got raped, tortured, and mailed to you in little rotting pieces along w/ a new photograph w/ each piece. Let's say you found out that it was your nextdoor neighbor. Are you really going to call the police, have them arrested, sit through trial, and then after all of that have them rehabilitated? Or is it more likely that you'd pay them a little visit and show them what you think of what they did? You and I both know which one is more likely. Your whole argument is just bleeding heart liberal rhetoric. Sorry to be so blunt but it's the truth.
|
|
|
Post by amoyensis on Dec 11, 2005 13:26:12 GMT -5
No, I agree, I would want revenge, and I'd probably want to break every bone in his body. In fact, I'd want to torture him for as long as possible and keep him alive throughout the whole thing. That doesn't make it right. If you key my car, I want to punch you in the face. If you splash me with mud while you're driving past me, I want to scratch your windshield. Something is not immediately made morally justifiable on the basis of the fact that we desire it to be so. 'Bleeding heart liberal rhetoric'? Please. Don't turn this into a name-calling war. You know better than that, and if you can't be mature enough to stand on the power of your arguments rather than the power of your name-calling then I have no place in this debate. I make every effort to be objective and if you refuse to respect that then I know that my views aren't worth much to you anyway.
As far as God being in control of our lives, how would you explain Job? Or the passages in the Bible that talk about God testing us? Once more, you're using our emotional status to try to define absolutes that transcend transient emotional states. Just because I didn't want my grandfather to die, doesn't mean that it was automatically wrong when he did die. God may not directly send tribulations to us, but if not he certainly will allow them. How else can you explain the statement that God will not test us beyond our capacities?
Back to the death penalty: you said that punishment does not equal forgiveness, and I agree with that. However, I'm not at all saying that jails should not exist. To say that my argument insinuates no jails is called the inductive fallacy; overgeneralizing my statements to apply to situations in which they were not intended. Jesus spoke in a specific circumstance; a woman was charged with a crime (adultery) that was to punished by the death penalty. He told them that they should go ahead and stone them if they believed that they could judge her from a sinless perspective, and no one could. As such, I believe his message is that we cannot judge whether or not someone else is to die. However, I'd like to know your interpretation of that story.
|
|
|
Post by stabinthedark on Dec 11, 2005 15:52:38 GMT -5
what i dont understand is how people can plead innocent for reasion of insanity if you sane or not doent matter if you take a life you take a life the blood is on you hands
|
|
|
Post by amoyensis on Dec 11, 2005 16:14:03 GMT -5
You don't plead innocent, you plead not guilty. There's a difference.
|
|
|
Post by jeepnut on Dec 11, 2005 16:19:00 GMT -5
I'm pro-life and there for do not believe in taking a life, both legally and illegally. This applies to all circumstances for me. I'll leave it there for now.
|
|
|
Post by shredmetal777 on Dec 11, 2005 16:27:21 GMT -5
I'm pro-life,also.
|
|
Death Adder
Junior Member
The Wizard of the Code
Posts: 65
|
Post by Death Adder on Dec 11, 2005 21:24:41 GMT -5
No, I agree, I would want revenge, and I'd probably want to break every bone in his body. In fact, I'd want to torture him for as long as possible and keep him alive throughout the whole thing. That doesn't make it right. If you key my car, I want to punch you in the face. If you splash me with mud while you're driving past me, I want to scratch your windshield. Something is not immediately made morally justifiable on the basis of the fact that we desire it to be so. Yes, I agree but that's not what you originally said. You said you'd want them put in Jail and rehabilitated. Clearly that isn't what you would want if put into the situation. I was merely trying to make you see from the perspective of a victim. However, as a society there can still be an organized outrage against a heinous action and there can still be a harsh punishment. I'm sorry... I've got a big problem w/ being easy to get angred in debates like this (I'm sure you saw it occasionally in the evolution debate). Really your viewpoint angers me to no end. Maybe it's not right but people w/ your opinion, in my eyes, are putting more value on the lives of criminals than on the lives of the people they've hurt. And that is what got me mad. Wasn't right of me to resort to name calling though. Yes, I think that there are Bible verses that say that God allows us to be tested. This does not mean that he wanted it to happen but sometimes he knows that we need for it to happen. This is much like a parent has to let bad things happen to their children so that their children can mature as people. Still, this does not mean that every time that someone gets hurt that it's God's will. Sometimes bad things happen and God had nothing to do w/ it. That was my point. But induction is none the less sometimes useful to show the logical progression of an argument. Maybe it's not what YOU meant but it's certainly a logical course if people take your point and run with it, and you know some people will. If we go around forgiving everyone and absolving them of their proper punishment then either prisons won't be needed or people will be spending a lot less time there. Maybe that's a good thing and maybe not. I think that his point was that you can't kill someone for every little infraction which was how the old law was setup. You'll notice that nobody seemed to care when Judas hung himself. It was a fitting end to his life given what he had done to Jesus. Also the thieves on the cross by Jesus were put to death for their crimes. He did not speak out against that even though it happened after the adultery story. I suppose my main problem with your argument is this: If not the death penalty then what? What is a fitting punishment for a violent pedophile? A serial murderer? Is sitting in prison watching TV and reading books really the correct punishment? Maybe it's not as good as being a free man but prison isn't necessarily all that bad in the US. In fact, a lot of homeless people intentionally commit crimes just TO go to prison. Killing a ton of people gets you a go to prison for life card. Esp if you are in Michigan (where I'm from) or another state that does not have the death penalty. So, do we really want to provide a half way decent life for a vicious pedophile? Or do we want to end their life for what they've done. One seems like it's more just than the other. If your sister got raped would you want the guy sitting in prison watching seinfeld reruns or would you like him to have an appropriate punishment? Rehabilitating a pedophile sounds great but what justice is it for his victims? I'm all for rehabilitating criminals but I do not think it's the correct route for violent offenders. If someone is caught stealing, great get them help. Caught selling or doing drugs? Try to clean them up and give them a fresh start. Do it again? Try once more. Third time? 50 cent bullet and they won't do it again. I'm all for the death penalty even for lighter criminals if they are repeat offenders. Life in prison is expensive on the state. Bullets are darn cheap and a permanent solution to the criminal's problem. So my view is thus summed up: 1. Violent offenders, esp really heinous offenders, deserve a bullet to the brainpan not life in prison 2. Repeat offenders can be fixed the same way if rehabilitation doesn't work the first two times. 3. The death penalty is better justice than rehabilitation and/or life in prison. Though letting someone rot in prison would sound like a fitting end. It isn't w/ our current prison system. Take away their TVs, radios, and books and feed them bread and water every day and maybe we've got something. 4. The death penalty can be made to be a lot cheaper on us all than life in prison or 20-30 years in prison. It's less than a dollar a bullet to do away w/ violent criminals and it is a 100% guarentee that they will not be a repeat offender. BTW, an interesting argument that we haven't covered yet. If you are against the death penalty then are you against war of any sort as well? Is it morally right for our troops to attack the insurgents in Iraq? If so why is it OK? Why would it be OK if killing a violent criminal is not? Just some extra stuff to debate.
|
|
|
Post by amoyensis on Dec 11, 2005 21:49:18 GMT -5
I'll get back to you tomorrow, but to answer the last part, yes I am against war because I interpret the teachings of Jesus to indicate non-violence.
|
|
|
Post by amoyensis on Dec 11, 2005 22:18:24 GMT -5
Nevermind, I do have time. No, I agree, I would want revenge, and I'd probably want to break every bone in his body. In fact, I'd want to torture him for as long as possible and keep him alive throughout the whole thing. That doesn't make it right. If you key my car, I want to punch you in the face. If you splash me with mud while you're driving past me, I want to scratch your windshield. Something is not immediately made morally justifiable on the basis of the fact that we desire it to be so. Yes, I agree but that's not what you originally said. You said you'd want them put in Jail and rehabilitated. Clearly that isn't what you would want if put into the situation. I was merely trying to make you see from the perspective of a victim. However, as a society there can still be an organized outrage against a heinous action and there can still be a harsh punishment. Previously I was speaking of the ideal. This is a debate about absolutes, therefore I was speaking based out of my ideal perspective. You still haven't addressed the issue of this paragraph: it is not morally justifiable simply because we want to be emotionally fulfilled. Not true. I value the lives of all people equally. However, I value the life of the criminal above the victims' desire for vengeance. Again: I cannot justify devaluing another human life even if we feel emotionally compelled to do so. OK, it started out relevant but now it's a completely different issue, so let's just leave it here. We can pick it up at a later date. Well then, let me apply induction to your argument; as you suggested, it's probably not what you mean, but logically somebody else could take the same concept and extrapolate. You say that the justice system should be changed. Shoot a guy in the head instead of allowing him to appeal; he's been proven guilty anyway. Well, where do we stop? Which crimes are punishable by death and which aren't? There is an Old Testament example of a teenager being killed for speaking out against his/her parents (I can't remember the specifics; I will look it up if you'd like to know the reference). And adultery was punishable by death in the Old Testament. So then, let's say that if someone is guilty of adultery, they should be killed too. Well, why stop there? Certainly, every crime has a negative impact on society. Someone steals a car, you let them out of jail, they could very well steal again. Someone is caught driving drunk, you let them off with community service and AA, and in six months they'll be driving drunk again. Why bother keeping them in jail? You're not going to let them out of jail for fear of re-offense, but keeping them in jail is just a waste of resources. Well then, car-jackers and drunk drivers should just be shot in the head and be done with. Society is better off without them. As you can see, induction brings an argument to its logical extremes, which is why the inductive fallacy is a logical fallacy; you can't use the absolute extremes of an argument to devalue the argument itself. Jesus did not speak out at all when he was being killed. He remained silent most of the time. He didn't speak out when he was mocked; does that mean it's justifiable to mock someone? He didn't speak out against his wrongful accusation; does that mean that it's justifiable to wrongly accuse people? I'll get back to that middle part of the paragraph, but first let me address my main problem with your argument: You're asking me the question 'why not?' I'm asking you the question 'why?' You have approached the death penalty with the original assumption that it is what should happen, and then you are asking me to justify why we should take that away. My understanding is the inverse; I believe that the death penalty is something that needs to be considered before applying it, rather than applying the death penalty and then considering whether we shouldn't apply it. Do you see my point? So let me point out why I don't believe in the death penalty. 1. Nowadays, we have security facilities that are capable of effectively isolating offenders from society. Therefore, the death penalty is not longer needed as a practical measure for preventing dangerous people from re-entering society. 2. If we accept 1 as true (which you don't have to, but this is my side of the argument), then why would we choose to end a person's life if it is not necessary to do so? Again, because this point is contingent on the first point it's up for dispute. 3. The basic psychology of the issue is hard to justify as well. If we're trying to base a societal law on the fact that killing is wrong, how can we demonstrate that killing is wrong by killing people? I mean, then you get into an endless (usually circular) philosophical debate about the difference between 'killing' and 'murder'. On a fundamental psychological level, it's difficult to accept the death penalty as a means of enforcing the law that murder is wrong. 4. As fellow human beings, I believe it is not our place in life to judge the value of someone else's life, especially when we aren't so sure when we want to devalue their life anyway. In your example of the drug dealer, after the third re-offense you suggested shooting him and just being done with it instead of continual rehabilitation that doesn't actually work. Where is that line? Why is it that after the first two re-offenses you did not feel compelled to shoot him, but on the third you decided that was it? Essentially, it boils down to this: at what point is a human life devalued to the point that the state can determine whether it should continue? It's easy to say that you want to kill a homocidal necrophilic child-molester. It's not so easy to determine when a drug dealer should die. 5. This is where it gets less empirical and more spiritual. In light of the belief that God will forgive all who ask of his forgiveness (a belief that you agree with, as I understand), then I would want any person to be given as much opportunity to receive God's grace as possible. Sure, people (especially cynical people who do not believe in God) may say that they never genuinely repent, they're just doing it for show. But that's not our place to judge. Should these people be allowed back into society? No; life sentence is life sentence. But by allowing these people to live, if the Holy Spirit convicts them in their lifetime and a genuine change can be seen in their manner then they can certainly have a positive impact on the lives of those around them by talking about their remorse and about the liberating grace of God. Now, to get back to the middle part of your paragraph: you talk about the jail system being too cushy. This is the fallacy of dichotomy; it's saying that the only two options are: 1. Cushy jail, or 2. Death penalty. In the same way that you suggested making the death-row system more efficient by getting rid of the appeals (re: my argument about death-row costing more money), this is not an issue of the principle of the matter, but rather the mechanisms of the justice system.
|
|
|
Post by cherryx on Dec 12, 2005 17:43:57 GMT -5
i love when Christians boycott abortion clinics but yet support the death penalty and Iraq...how is a young boy in uniform being put in the line of fire any different than a baby in the womb?
End the war in Iraq,the war in the Womb,the War on the Death Penalty,and the War on Hunger....or dont call yourself pro life.
|
|
Death Adder
Junior Member
The Wizard of the Code
Posts: 65
|
Post by Death Adder on Dec 12, 2005 18:09:24 GMT -5
You never disappoint! I'm glad you are around because you always take the time to give me a real run for my money and that's what I like to see!
To answer the question of moral justification (and this anwers a point you made later on as well): One of the ten commandments is: Thou shalt not kill. However, God still sent the Israelites on a lot of wars. Clearly there is a difference between a person killing another of his own accord and society causing it's agent(s) to kill for society. God was clearly not against war (in the OT anyhow). He was also clearly not against using the death penalty in the OT. Since Jesus got the DP in the New Testament I think that we can reasonably assume that God knew it still had to happen.
And that's what I hoped you would say. ;-) Not to trap you but because it's the right answer. However, the death penalty is not born solely or principly of emotion. The person who ends up executing the prisoner probably doesn't care one way or the other. Society is saying that the prisoner deserves death for what they did. It's a logical argument. Whether you agree w/ it or not is the question. I admit though that I have been using mostly emotional arguments.
Yes, it works both ways. But I'm less against the extreme you presented than the extreme I presented. I DO believe that keeping most criminals in jail is a waste of money. Either rehabilitate them and supervise them well to see if they really have changed or get rid of them. I can see jail/prison for offences that will end up with, say, less than 15 year sentences but above that you are basically giving someone a death sentence anyway.
My point has been that society needs to set the limits. I'd be a bad person to ask because I'm for off-ing a lot of them... But there has to be a middle ground or agreement that society can come to. I don't really seriously want to kill all carjackers though that would be a nice deterrant. But pedophiles, murderers, and rapists get my vote for the DP. I think those crimes are severe enough to warrant death.
No but it doesn't mean the inverse either. It just means that there is ambiguity and I'm on one side of that and you are on the other.
Yes I see your point but I'm saying basically the same thing but drawing a different conclusion. We SHOULD consider whether to use it and let the decision weight on our heart before a decision is made but in the end sometimes the correct answer is the DP.
But it also costs a lot of money to store someone in a secured facility for life. Who is paying for that? What benefit is there to society to do that? I understand that I'm wandering away from a moral argument but the question still remains. Why should society pay around 40,000 a year per prisoner to store violent criminals in jail? What reason do we have for doing that? Is a moral obligation what makes us do that? Maybe the solution is to get more work out of the inmates?
I guess my answer, as cold as it is, is money. And how humane is it really to lock someone away for life? Also, I don't really see anywhere in the Bible that says that it's wrong to punish someone with death for a heinous crime. We need to figure out some punishment. Locking away someone for life is a rather big drag on their life's value too.
Then the Israelites must have been really confused because on one hand they had 'Thou Shalt not kill' and on the other hand they had God telling them to attack a people and wipe out every man, woman, and child and not even let the livestock live.
No, it isn't easy... But as a society we need to make the determinations anyway.
Keep in mind, the wages of sin is death. Even though we can be forgiven for our sins we will still die because of sin. We may be saved in the afterlife but in this one we've got to pay the piper for our wrongdoings.
My point was that there should be a third option. I'd be less inclined toward the death penalty for some crimes if prison were a little less cushy. Why do prisoners need TVs? Still, for some crimes theres no getting around the DP for me.
Also, I'd like to commend you on your post. It was really difficult trying to counter some of that and it really made me think. Granted, I'm still for the DP but I've got a better understanding of your point of view now. My view comes down to seeing it as an appropriate punishment that doesnt seem to be outright banned in the Bible. I can however see why you would think that maybe it is. I suppose that it's a matter of perspective.
|
|
Death Adder
Junior Member
The Wizard of the Code
Posts: 65
|
Post by Death Adder on Dec 12, 2005 18:18:29 GMT -5
i love when Christians boycott abortion clinics but yet support the death penalty and Iraq...how is a young boy in uniform being put in the line of fire any different than a baby in the womb? End the war in Iraq,the war in the Womb,the War on the Death Penalty,and the War on Hunger....or dont call yourself pro life. Whooooah there bruiser! I'm pro-life in the sense that I don't believe in abortion but I'm definately for the DP and not outright against war. Remember this country was founded by starting a war. Also, we'd all be speaking German right now had the US not entered WWII and defeated the Germans and the Japanese. Not all war is evil. God commanded the Israelites to kill all sorts of people. Does that make God evil? War is a necessary evil. The DP is not strictly necessary but seems the fitting punishment for some crimes. In Iraq, well it's less cut and dried than WWII. If our soldiers are shooting insurgents then thats all well and good. If any of them are shooting defenseless civilians for no reason then they ought to be court martialed (if they did it on purpose).
|
|