Why do they never give the death sentence!?!

[Honeywell]

There's a guy here in Washington who plead guilty to 13 counts of murder so he could get out of the death sentence. He ended up with 408 years in prison :rolleyes: . Tell me one reason why this guys should live. He killed 13 people! With prisons way beyond their capacity why don't they give people like this get the death sentence? He's gonna die in prison anyways, they might as well put him to death now. What's your thoughts?

As I heard one person put it, it's not the Criminal Justice system it's the Criminal's Justices system.....so true.

[KFulch]

I never understand why tax dollars are wasted keeping criminals alive for "X"# amount of years. If an individual is guilty w/o any reasonable doubt what so ever, go ahead and get them out of society. Stop using the money internal govt. could put towards education for public school systems, Parks & Recreation etc. to keep a violent criminal alive and well in a prison.

[-dustin]

man, he would've been killed a few times in Tx.

[The Toninator]

If you pled guilty to murder in most states i know of, you are exempt (or what ever the term is) from the death penalty. and yes even in Texas.

[ohio]

Originally posted by KFulch
I never understand why tax dollars are wasted keeping criminals alive for "X"# amount of years. If an individual is guilty w/o any reasonable doubt what so ever, go ahead and get them out of society. Stop using the money internal govt. could put towards education for public school systems, Parks & Recreation etc. to keep a violent criminal alive and well in a prison.

It costs more to put someone to death than to house them for life in prison.

I do agree that he should die though.

[The Toninator]

Originally posted by ohio


It costs more to put someone to death than to house them for life in prison.



Umm if they let me do it i'll cover the $2.50 for the bullets and also do it for free.
t

[KFulch]

It would be nice if they could work into a prisons budget for an internal power source for electrocution. I always thought it would be cheaper that way; or in Ohio ( It may be in one of the mid-western states ) an individual can choose the firing squad. That is pretty economical:nopity:

[splat]

Originally posted by ohio


It costs more to put someone to death than to house them for life in prison.

I do agree that he should die though.

He is correct, and it is not the cost of the execution , it is the cost of all the legal wrangling, and these people who are against the the death penalty, who will fight on your behalf weather you want them too or not.

[The Toninator]

speaking of, i think we had an execution last night at the Ellis unit.

[Spud]

Though it doesn’t apply to the specific case that Honeywell mentioned, there have been numerous death penalty convictions that have been recently been overturned by DNA evidence. That is the perp was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt :rolleyes: only to find out that the DNA evidence later showed that somebody else committed the crime. These were a few of the lucky guys who actually got to have DNA tests run post conviction.

Hell, I’m not sure that I’m against the death penalty, but executing innocent people with my tax dollars just doesn’t sit right with me.

[Damn True]

Rope can be used again and again.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Spud
Though it doesn’t apply to the specific case that Honeywell mentioned, there have been numerous death penalty convictions that have been recently been overturned by DNA evidence. That is the perp was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt :rolleyes: only to find out that the DNA evidence later showed that somebody else committed the crime. These were a few of the lucky guys who actually got to have DNA tests run post conviction.

Hell, I’m not sure that I’m against the death penalty, but executing innocent people with my tax dollars just doesn’t sit right with me.

This is just the reason why it makes me VERY uncomfortable when we have juries deciding a person's sentence. Usually, the 12 people know nothing about the law and they let their emotions/biases interfere.

But besides all that, I'm against the death penalty. I used to be diehard for it, saying "fry 'em" because they were horrible human beings who didn't deserve to live, they killed someone, so they should be killed, blah, blah, blah...Now that I have been educated about the arbitrary usage of capital punishment, how 99% of people on death row are poor, and how killing someone creates a whole different set of heartbroken/anguished people (their friends and families), I can't support it.

Okay--who is going to try to change my mind today? Bring it on!;)

[splat]

There are those that say , locaking someone up with no chance of ever being free is a fate worse than death, by making them live that way for the rest of there life.

[Honeywell]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


This is just the reason why it makes me VERY uncomfortable when we have juries deciding a person's sentence. Usually, the 12 people know nothing about the law and they let their emotions/biases interfere.

But besides all that, I'm against the death penalty. I used to be diehard for it, saying "fry 'em" because they were horrible human beings who didn't deserve to live, they killed someone, so they should be killed, blah, blah, blah...Now that I have been educated about the arbitrary usage of capital punishment, how 99% of people on death row are poor, and how killing someone creates a whole different set of heartbroken/anguished people (their friends and families), I can't support it.

Okay--who is going to try to change my mind today? Bring it on!;)

You have to think about what these criminals did to the victims families also...

I'm just tired of seeing murderer after murderer getting off pretty much with a slap on the wrist with X number of years in prison.

And does prison really rehabilitate anyone? If I'm a cold-blooded killer that's just served a 20 year sentence in a prison where I get to watch TV, play basketball, go to school, lift weights etc. what do I have fear about going back to prison?

[Damn True]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


This is just the reason why it makes me VERY uncomfortable when we have juries deciding a person's sentence. Usually, the 12 people know nothing about the law and they let their emotions/biases interfere.

But besides all that, I'm against the death penalty. I used to be diehard for it, saying "fry 'em" because they were horrible human beings who didn't deserve to live, they killed someone, so they should be killed, blah, blah, blah...Now that I have been educated about the arbitrary usage of capital punishment, how 99% of people on death row are poor, and how killing someone creates a whole different set of heartbroken/anguished people (their friends and families), I can't support it.

Okay--who is going to try to change my mind today? Bring it on!;)


Silly.
What is a better alternative to a jury? Political apointees? Yeah, they'll be impartial.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Honeywell




And does prison really rehabilitate anyone? If I'm a cold-blooded killer that's just served a 20 year sentence in a prison where I get to watch TV, play basketball, go to school, lift weights etc. what do I have fear about going back to prison?

Give me a break...do you mean to tell me that if you were in prison that TV and lifting weights will make it a lot better? I don't know about you, but this whole "prisoners have the good life" is a bunch of right wing bull. I would never want to be in prison, to be told when to wake up, eat, and even take a crap, where my life is spent behind bars and I couldn't see my loved ones, where all of my freedoms are taken away and I have no say as to how I can live my life. Funny--if prison life is so good, how 'bout we all commit crimes so we can "live it up" in the big house.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Damn True



Silly.
What is a better alternative to a jury? Political apointees? Yeah, they'll be impartial.

Well, I would rather have some judge who has been politically appointed WHO WENT TO LAW SCHOOL AND PASSED THE BAR EXAM as opposed to some yum yum housewife who has made herself into a "professional juror" in between her TV schedule of Ricki Lake and Divorce Court.

[Damn True]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


Give me a break...do you mean to tell me that if you were in prison that TV and lifting weights will make it a lot better? I don't know about you, but this whole "prisoners have the good life" is a bunch of right wing bull. I would never want to be in prison, to be told when to wake up, eat, and even take a crap, where my life is spent behind bars and I couldn't see my loved ones, where all of my freedoms are taken away and I have no say as to how I can live my life. Funny--if prison life is so good, how 'bout we all commit crimes so we can "live it up" in the big house.


They are certainly granted better treatment than they give thier victims don't you think?

Prison is supposed to suck. The French had it right with the prision colonies in Guyana. (See the movie Papillon. That is a prison system!)

[Damn True]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


Well, I would rather have some judge who has been politically appointed WHO WENT TO LAW SCHOOL AND PASSED THE BAR EXAM as opposed to some yum yum housewife who has made herself into a "professional juror" in between her TV schedule of Ricki Lake and Divorce Court.

Far fewer of your beloved "human beings" (and I use that term loosely) would escape long term imprisonment and the death penalty if their fates were left to a person who is jaded by years of listening to stories of grizzly crimes.

Your "yum yum" housewife (what is wrong with being a housewife?) is far more likely to vote against the death penalty.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Damn True


Prison is supposed to suck.

Right. So what's wrong with keeping them in prison for the rest of their lives?

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Damn True


Far fewer of your beloved "human beings" (and I use that term loosely) would escape long term imprisonment and the death penalty if their fates were left to a person who is jaded by years of listening to stories of grizzly crimes.

Your "yum yum" housewife (what is wrong with being a housewife?) is far more likely to vote against the death penalty.

Not true...when juries are selected in capital cases, the lawyers make sure that the ones they select are FOR the death penalty. But hey--getting days off from work and paid for it, sounds like a deal to me. And I would rather have a jaded judge who unemotionally can decide my fate than an emotional bleeding heart who condemns me because "I just know in my heart she's guilty." I suggest you read "On the Jury" by Vivian Gornick and that would make you think again about who you want to decide whether you are guilty or not.

[Damn True]

Hello!

The prosecution AND the defense take part in the selection of the jury. They both have a certain number of opportunities to reject the others choices.

Id bet that nationwide there are far fewer capitial punishments given than capital crimes commited. More often than not it is the jurors that go soft and don't vote for the death penalty as opposed to life in prison.

Id prefer jurors just decide guilt or innocence and have judges, or a panel of judges mitigate appropriate sentancing.

Show me an example of a better judicial system.

[Honeywell]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


Give me a break...do you mean to tell me that if you were in prison that TV and lifting weights will make it a lot better? I don't know about you, but this whole "prisoners have the good life" is a bunch of right wing bull. I would never want to be in prison, to be told when to wake up, eat, and even take a crap, where my life is spent behind bars and I couldn't see my loved ones, where all of my freedoms are taken away and I have no say as to how I can live my life. Funny--if prison life is so good, how 'bout we all commit crimes so we can "live it up" in the big house.

Umm...prisoners do have a very good life. While their in the slammer they can earn their GED, and even take Yoga classes (I saw this on the local news). Wow, this sounds like a great punishment to me.

And I guess school would be considered a prison then to because they tell me when to eat, when I can take a break, what time I can go home etc.

Like DT said prison is supposed to suck but the problem is it doesn't. And having priviledges like playing basketball, lifting weights, watching TV and going to school would make the time spent there better, a lot better. With all the priviledges and "opportunities" in prison it's almost becoming like the free world. Something prison shouldn't be like.

[Damn True]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


Right. So what's wrong with keeping them in prison for the rest of their lives?


BECAUSE WE DONT!

We let them out for good behavior all too often and let them go out and kill again.

If we actually kept them locked in an 8'x8' cell for the rest of their days I would be satisfied. Under a few caveats.

No TV.
Hell, when I was grounded for fibbing to my mom I didn't get TV. If you murder somoene you shouldn't have the chance to watch ESPN.

No HS or college classes.
Thats like having braille on a drive up ATM. Life in prison means you never get out. What do you need a degree in economics for? It is just costing me money. Employ the teachers at schools for people (kids) who haven't killed anyone.

No AC.
Fully 3/4 of our nations classrooms don't have it. Why do murderers get it? A guilty murderer does not deserve a comfort that is not granted to an innocent 4th grader.

1 appeal, that's it.
If we cannot try the same suspect twice for the same crime, why can the suspect repeatedly put his sentance on trial. (Jury misconduct, tampering, legitimate mistrial, etc excluded of course)

Real fricken attorneys. The BAR association should be allowed to control assignment of trial attorneys. Every couple of years they must switch sides. Two years as a prosecutor (supervised by District Attorneys of course) then we allow two years as a defense attorney.

a couple of things l'd like to see, and a public gallows of course

[Dog Welder]

Hey DT...so I take it you're for the death penalty?

[RideMonkey]

I agree with all of this. Except for the part about keeping them alive. Dump them in the ocean.


Originally posted by Damn True



BECAUSE WE DONT!

We let them out for good behavior all too often and let them go out and kill again.

If we actually kept them locked in an 8'x8' cell for the rest of their days I would be satisfied. Under a few caveats.

No TV.
Hell, when I was grounded for fibbing to my mom I didn't get TV. If you murder somoene you shouldn't have the chance to watch ESPN.

No HS or college classes.
Thats like having braille on a drive up ATM. Life in prison means you never get out. What do you need a degree in economics for? It is just costing me money. Employ the teachers at schools for people (kids) who haven't killed anyone.

No AC.
Fully 3/4 of our nations classrooms don't have it. Why do murderers get it? A guilty murderer does not deserve a comfort that is not granted to an innocent 4th grader.

1 appeal, that's it.
If we cannot try the same suspect twice for the same crime, why can the suspect repeatedly put his sentance on trial. (Jury misconduct, tampering, legitimate mistrial, etc excluded of course)

Real fricken attorneys. The BAR association should be allowed to control assignment of trial attorneys. Every couple of years they must switch sides. Two years as a prosecutor (supervised by District Attorneys of course) then we allow two years as a defense attorney.

a couple of things l'd like to see, and a public gallows of course

[LeatherFace]

Where do you people get your facts? Fox News?

Recidivism
A New York Times survey, released in September 2000, found that during the last 20 years, thehomicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in
states without the death penalty.
Source: Death Penalty Information Center

The Times study also reported that FBI data showed that 10 of the 12 states without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average.

Almost every state now uses a lengthy guaranteed minimum sentence (such as 25 or 30 years) before parole can even be considered, and in 42 states parole is never possible.

This is a significant change from 1972 when the death penalty was temporarily suspended (Furman v. Georgia) and nearly 600 death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment. Almost every inmate affected by that decision has either been released or has an expected parole date set. Even so, the Marquart
& Sorenson study (23 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 5, 1989), which looked at the 558 deathsentenced inmates whose sentences were commuted under Furman, found that of the 243 inmates released to the community, only one committed a new homicide. Hmmmm, only ONE committed a new homicide? What happened to all of the supposed killers they let out?

People are frightened when they hear of criminals such as Charles Manson and Sirhan Sirhan beingconsidered for parole.
But Manson and Sirhan were sentenced under California law that existed prior to the enactment of life without parole. Had they been sentenced after that law’s passage, they would never even be considered forparole.

People are also frightened by reports of prisoners who actually are paroled and then commit additional crimes. However, in virtually every case in which a convicted murderer has been released on parole and then committed other crimes, the parolee had not been convicted of capital murder. Therefore, he or she would never have been subjected to the death penalty in the first place.

Often juries are not informed that life without parole is an alternative to a death sentence and, because they fear the commission of another murder, they vote for death. After Indiana, Georgia, and Virginia provided for life without parole in capital murder cases and juries were informed of the alternative, they havebrought in fewer death verdicts.

Sounds like you all are victims of the "Willie Horton" propaganda...:rolleyes:

[RideMonkey]

Oh I forgot. I hope Bill Gates doesnt get TV in prison. Preach it True! I also hope they set Bills balls on fire.

Originally posted by Damn True



BECAUSE WE DONT!

We let them out for good behavior all too often and let them go out and kill again.

If we actually kept them locked in an 8'x8' cell for the rest of their days I would be satisfied. Under a few caveats.

No TV.
Hell, when I was grounded for fibbing to my mom I didn't get TV. If you murder somoene you shouldn't have the chance to watch ESPN.

No HS or college classes.
Thats like having braille on a drive up ATM. Life in prison means you never get out. What do you need a degree in economics for? It is just costing me money. Employ the teachers at schools for people (kids) who haven't killed anyone.

No AC.
Fully 3/4 of our nations classrooms don't have it. Why do murderers get it? A guilty murderer does not deserve a comfort that is not granted to an innocent 4th grader.

1 appeal, that's it.
If we cannot try the same suspect twice for the same crime, why can the suspect repeatedly put his sentance on trial. (Jury misconduct, tampering, legitimate mistrial, etc excluded of course)

Real fricken attorneys. The BAR association should be allowed to control assignment of trial attorneys. Every couple of years they must switch sides. Two years as a prosecutor (supervised by District Attorneys of course) then we allow two years as a defense attorney.

a couple of things l'd like to see, and a public gallows of course

[Damn True]

A New York Times survey, released in September 2000, found that during the last 20 years, thehomicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in

But when the death penalty is invoked the recidivism rate is ZERO.

All that data says is that having the death penalty and not using it has no effect on recidivism.



The Times study also reported that FBI data showed that 10 of the 12 states without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average.

....and how many states w/o CP have rates above the average?

Again, useless data.




Hmmmm, only ONE committed a new homicide? What happened to all of the supposed killers they let out?

That's one too many. Holy crap, how would you like to be the jackass that signed THAT parole authorization? How many of them commited other crimes? Most killings occur during other crimes. Drug deal or robbery gone bad etc. Because they haven't yet dosen't mean they wont. The risk isn't worth it to me.
Excecute them in the first place or keep them locked up forever and we don't have to worry about them ever again.

[Damn True]

Originally posted by RideMonkey
Oh I forgot. I hope Bill Gates doesnt get TV in prison. Preach it True! I also hope they set Bills balls on fire.




In prison Bill Gates will only get Linux.

He will also purchase then dissolve all interprison drug gangs and those guys that sell BJ's in exchange for cigarettes.

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Dog Welder
Hey DT...so I take it you're for the death penalty?

Yes, or life in prison (meaning no parole) with the above mentioned conditions.

[Skookum]

I believe that the more violent offenders, and high profile murderers, and rapists and such are being housed in these new supermax prisons where they get one hour a day to walk around in a courtyard by themselves(and a guard watching them) No one can convince that this is not a fate worse than death. I would rather die than do twenty years in that situation, maybe even choose death rather than doing 10 depends on how old i was. T.V. can suck in prison becuase its a window on the world outside which you cannot participate. Most prisoners only get 5 or 10 year sets for drugs and burglarys and such. Driving the majority of offenders insane then releasing them and expecting them to do well in society is a crock. Yes criminals must be held accountable for thier actions but lets save the harshest treatment for the worst criminals.
I believe the death penalty would do well if the victims family could choose who flips the switch. Just a thought.
And the man who murdered 13 people in this state plea bargained for his life, confessed to all murders. Now he faces two more counts of murder in another county here in Washington. If he is found guilty he will probably recieve the death penalty for those murders. Now mind you i could really care less what happens to this peice of trash, but my concern here is the double cross the state/county prosecuters put on him to get him to plea. Not that i think it was a great move in putting resolutions to the murders and saving money in court costs, but it's a bad idea because any other high profile killer will be less likely to plea for fear of being double dipped like in this case. To put it simply yah we duped this killer, but the ones down the road are now gonna tie up courts and fight tooth and nail to escape the death penalty. Like the guy who is being tried for some of the green river killings.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Damn True

keep them locked up forever and we don't have to worry about them ever again.

This is what I want...how can you be both? How can you be for the death penalty and life in prison without parole? How do you decide who gets which sentence...again, arbitrary justice based in emotions. Funny how some people think they can play "God" and decide who dies and who lives...:confused:

[Damn True]

I'm not vasilating, I'm offering a comprimise to the bleeding hearts who think killing a killer is somehow unjust. I'm just saying that if we can't have the death penalty then an acceptible comprimise would be to lock them up FOREVER.

But if I were king of the world:
Rape, child molesetation, or kill someone while DUI: Life in prison.
Murder: Death Penalty.

[splat]

Originally posted by Damn True


Show me an example of a better judicial system.

The US military Court martial system !

Judge/Jury Panel of some one of equal or greater rank !
a true judgement by your peers.

[RideMonkey]

Everyone who opposes the death penalty should ahve to pay for the imprisonment of the murderers out of their own pockets.

If a government tax payer was stopping by to collect the murderers prison tax every week and suddenly that extra cash they had for luxuries and recreation were to disappear, things would seem somewhat different.

Its easy to say we should be charitable when someone else is footing the bill.

And before you come back with that "but its more expensive to kill someone than imprison them blah blah..." well thats another flaw of the current system. Sharks and crocodiles can't be that expensive.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by RideMonkey
Everyone who opposes the death penalty should ahve to pay for the imprisonment of the murderers out of their own pockets.

If a government tax payer was stopping by to collect the murderers prison tax every week and suddenly that extra cash they had for luxuries and recreation were to disappear, things would seem somewhat different.

Its easy to say we should be charitable when someone else is footing the bill.

And before you come back with that "but its more expensive to kill someone than imprison them blah blah..." well thats another flaw of the current system. Sharks and crocodiles can't be that expensive.

I would rather pay the $600,000 it takes to house a person for the rest of his/her life than the $3.2 million it takes to kill them. And you can say "Well, there is something wrong with the system." Yes, you are right, but it isn't going to change, so if you are talking moneywise, which you are, why wouldn't you support life in prison? And sharks and crocodiles---obviously you won't care if you have Amnesty International or other human rights groups try to stop you, so maybe that would work in the country you run, but I don't think that would fly in the US.

Since 1973, 102 people have been released from death row because they were innocent. In only 12 of those cases, DNA was a factor that proved innocence. And I think there is a misunderstanding that if you are released from death row, you walk out the prison door--not true. Most have their death row sentences commuted to life in prison without parole.

I had no idea I was among such blood thirsty people...:(

[Honeywell]

Originally posted by LeatherFace
I had no idea I was among such blood thirsty people...:(

Not blood thirsty people, just citizens that want to see justice served.

An eye for an eye!

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Honeywell


An eye for an eye!

Hmmm, so now I suppose you feel using that Biblical quote will greatly support your arguement. Okay, let's look at this. If you want to go by the Bible, and the OT teachings of "an eye for an eye," let's look at what it says about the death penalty.

In the Mosaic law the death penalty was inflicted for
murder, Gen. 9:5,6; Num. 35:16-21,30-33; Deut. 17:6;
adultery, Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:24;
incest, Lev. 20:11,12,14;
bestiality, Ex. 22:19; Lev. 20:15,16;
sodomy, Lev. 18:22; 20:13;
incontinence, Deut. 22:21-24;
rape of a betrothed virgin, Deut. 22:25;
perjury, Zech. 5:4;
kidnapping, Ex. 21:16; Deut. 24:7;
upon a priest's daughter, who committed fornication, Lev. 21:9; for witchcraft, Ex. 22:18;
offering human sacrifice, Lev. 20:2-5;
for striking or cursing father or mother, Ex. 21:15,17; Lev. 20:9;
disobedience to parents, Deut. 21:18-21;
theft, Zech. 5:3,4;
blasphemy, Lev. 24:11-14,16,23;
for Sabbath desecration, Ex. 35:2; Num. 15:32-36;
for prophesying falsely, or propagating false doctrines, Deut. 13:1-10;
sacrificing to false gods, Ex. 22:20;
refusing to abide by the decision of court, Deut. 17:12;
for treason, 1 Kin. 2:25; Esth. 2:23;
sedition, Acts 5:36,37.


Soooo, if you are going to bring the age old adage into this, let's make sure we don't leave anyone out...don't say an eye for an eye unless you are familiar with the Bible...and eye for and eye just brings us down to the same level as the killer. We become him.

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by LeatherFace

Soooo, if you are going to bring the age old adage into this, let's make sure we don't leave anyone out...don't say an eye for an eye unless you are familiar with the Bible...and eye for and eye just brings us down to the same level as the killer. We become him.

If you're going to bring the BIBLE into this, then you should probably be aware of the fact that when Jesus came into the world, he was the fulfillment of the law (although not the replacement of the law). Before he came, the only way to be righteous and to 'do right' was to follow the law....afterward, the only way to be righteous was to take Him into your heart. The people who always followed the letter to the very law were called Pharisees. We all know what Jesus had to say about them. *L*

In other words, the Old Testament teaches all these things, but the New Testament (aside from the examples mentioned) does not teach death for all those infractions. It is not wrong to follow the Old Testament law, necessarily....it's just not necessary to follow ALL the laws ALL the time to be righteous, because apart from Christ, we can't be righteous. That is why the laws were established in the first place.....to give people a standard by which to live their lives to become more righteous, and punish those less righteous. Since Jesus came, He IS the standard of righteousness. (I'm not witnessing...just explaining the Bible a bit). A perfect example is the prostitute whom Jesus says "Go and sin no more" to. Old Testament laws prescribed death for her.....but Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

I'm not saying I don't support the death penalty. You sure refer to the Bible a lot for someone who doesn't believe it's the Truth. :D

[Honeywell]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


Hmmm, so now I suppose you feel using that Biblical quote will greatly support your arguement. Okay, let's look at this. If you want to go by the Bible, and the OT teachings of "an eye for an eye," let's look at what it says about the death penalty.

In the Mosaic law the death penalty was inflicted for
murder, Gen. 9:5,6; Num. 35:16-21,30-33; Deut. 17:6;
adultery, Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:24;
incest, Lev. 20:11,12,14;
bestiality, Ex. 22:19; Lev. 20:15,16;
sodomy, Lev. 18:22; 20:13;
incontinence, Deut. 22:21-24;
rape of a betrothed virgin, Deut. 22:25;
perjury, Zech. 5:4;
kidnapping, Ex. 21:16; Deut. 24:7;
upon a priest's daughter, who committed fornication, Lev. 21:9; for witchcraft, Ex. 22:18;
offering human sacrifice, Lev. 20:2-5;
for striking or cursing father or mother, Ex. 21:15,17; Lev. 20:9;
disobedience to parents, Deut. 21:18-21;
theft, Zech. 5:3,4;
blasphemy, Lev. 24:11-14,16,23;
for Sabbath desecration, Ex. 35:2; Num. 15:32-36;
for prophesying falsely, or propagating false doctrines, Deut. 13:1-10;
sacrificing to false gods, Ex. 22:20;
refusing to abide by the decision of court, Deut. 17:12;
for treason, 1 Kin. 2:25; Esth. 2:23;
sedition, Acts 5:36,37.


Soooo, if you are going to bring the age old adage into this, let's make sure we don't leave anyone out...don't say an eye for an eye unless you are familiar with the Bible...and eye for and eye just brings us down to the same level as the killer. We become him.

If someone committs a crime against another person let's say murder, that person deserves to be killed. If they steal something, cut off their hand (although I'd think that would be considered cruel and unusual punishment ;) ). You get the idea, that's what I meant by an eye for eye, as it is reffered to in Matthew 5:30, 8:18 and Mark 9:43. But not only can it be applied to sin in our life like the Bible was talking about, but I believe it would also make a good form of punishment :) :monkey: .

[Spud]

“Innocent people on death row is unacceptable. Until I can be sure that everyone sentenced to death in Illinois is truly guilty, no one will meet that fate. I can't support a system proven to be so fraught with error and come so close to the ultimate nightmare of taking an innocent person's life. People are starting to understand that there's a possibility that innocent people are going to be put to death. I don't think anybody wants that on their hands or their consciences. It's just a matter of right and wrong." -Gov. George Ryan

Illinois Gov. Ryan is a republican and has a long record of being pro capital punishment. He put a temporary moratorium on capital punishment in his state after DNA testing completely exhonerated people sentenced to death in his state.

Let's get a system that works before we start offing people.
:angry:

[Zonic Man]

This little thing called the Constitution and those pesky amendments.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by fourgivn1


You sure refer to the Bible a lot for someone who doesn't believe it's the Truth. :D

I only refer to it when others use it to support statements they make--by no means do I think it is the truth. I was raised Catholic, so I know where to look to find to rebut arguments that use all of their supporting "facts" by citing the Bible. I merely quoted (cut and pasted ;) ) to point out how silly it is to use the Bible to support capital punishment (that good old "eye for an eye" adage), because I find that most people quote the Bible in places that further their beliefs, no matter what it is.

For example, I was reading some articles on a freaked out "Family Values" site and this woman wrote in about how she wouldn't let her grandchildren read Harry Potter because Harry was a wizard, which translated in her twisted brain as "witch," and the Bible says that witches and witchcraft are evil. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" I believe is the phrase, and I only know that because I studied the Salem Witch Trials. So she is advocating against Harry Potter. Give me a break! People have too much time on their hands, and tend to twist the words of a book into whatever they want them to be. That was merely my point.

But I kick butt at Bible Trivia!;)

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


I only refer to it when others use it to support statements they make--by no means do I think it is the truth. I was raised Catholic, so I know where to look to find to rebut arguments that use all of their supporting "facts" by citing the Bible. I merely quoted (cut and pasted ;) ) to point out how silly it is to use the Bible to support capital punishment (that good old "eye for an eye" adage), because I find that most people quote the Bible in places that further their beliefs, no matter what it is.

But I kick butt at Bible Trivia!;)

Yep, you do that. :) Although I will say this, and this is not intended as a slam or an insult in any way.....it is very easy to rebut arguments, especially Biblical arguments, depending upon your point of view.

For instance, on the one hand, anyone who says "Ah, the Bible is a collection of stories" or "There's no proof that Jesus existed" is going to learn otherwise if they do any sort of research at all, because it's obvious that they're finding archaeological stuff and papyrus scrolls and such that support the Bible and the People in it. Just recently, as a matter of fact, a find was discovered that made a reference to the Biblical David. Before that time, there was no concrete find that directly refered to him, so a lot of non-believer scientists sort of gloated over that fact. Now they can't. *L*

On the other hand, one will never 'prove' that God exists, as far as looking for concrete, hard proof. Faith obviously requires that one make a few assumptions. And it is unfortunate (from my point of view) that people can't always make those assumptions. Why do I say this? Well, it is obvious that since there's really not 100% proof for EVERY religion, they all must be taken on faith. And Christianity has by far the largest amount of concrete evidence (in archaeological/historical/literary form).

Well, the same people that trust courts every day to convict people on the basis of evidence, can not accept God's existence, His Son's existence, etc., on the basis of evidence. It's fairly easy to prove that Jesus was not a liar or a lunatic by using logic, known facts (i.e., all the prophecies He spoke about were fulfilled - that can be proved easily), deductive reasoning, etc., and that He spoke the truth about the things He said. Once that is established, it is inferred that He spoke the truth about EVERY WORD He said, and then, of course, since He spoke of God, then God must exist. But people can't accept that because they can find no evidence for God HIMSELF.

No, I'm not taking witnessing potshots at you. But I will say that Christian arguments are a LOT stronger than most of the 'representatives' (the quotes denote facetiousness *L*) make them out to be. A good argument in the hands of a dumb believer makes - you got it - a dumb argument. I'm not by ANY means saying I'm a smart believer (although I'd like to think I am) but I ALWAYS go and research something if I do not know the answer, and I admit it if I'm wrong.

[Damn True]

you guys are like smart and stuff

[fourgivn1]

Duh, thanks! Me happy you give compliment. :D