Is the sentence a good or bad policy? Some states allow it, and some countries aloow it, yet others dont. Yes, I know some of might say everyone deserves to live, and most of the time i would agree with you, but what if there is a man that has been tested positive for some sort of disorder that causes him to have a strong urge to kill at random times, and he was either about to be set free in your town or put to death. What would you say? There is the unethical and the inhumane reason, but a large reason many places ban it is the cost. Some states are backed up with people on death row, because they have to pay lawyers to file paperwork, and keep those hundreds, maybe thousands, of people alive for howver long. Think, do you really want your tax dollars going there?
I think that the death penalty should only be an option where the victim's family, or a victim of a shooting who lived, requests the penalty. If the victim's family requests the killer's sentence to be commuted, their wishes should be followed.
I don't believe it says to kill someone who works on the Sabbath, who doesn't believe in God, who is a witch, etc.. in the Bible.
Just wanted to clear this up a bit on this thread, he does mention these things, and here are also a few more (many more are mentioned throughout the bible).
- male who was not circumcised: Genesis 17:14 - Engaging in ritual animal sacrifices other than at the temple: Leviticus 17:1-9 - Consuming blood: Leviticus 17:10 - Gluttony and excessive drinking: Deuteronomy 21:20 age=3">"Theology Online forum"
These are called symbolic laws and were specifically given to the Israelites to seperate themselves from the other nations. These laws are also passed. God even told Peter to "Get up, Peter, Kill and eat." (Acts 10:13) Killing and eating a unclean animal, (Also eating blood).
On murder: "He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." Ex. 21:12 (Old Testament) "...he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints." Rev. 13:10 (New Testament) "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets..." Matt. 5:17
**** religion, we are talking about modern laws and unless we live in the world of Twilight, no one is
Consuming blood: Leviticus 17:10[/quote]
Mate, if you want to troll, I suggest you take it somewhere else. Not many people appreciate people who don't even read the threads, or even the quote I am responding to.
I said, I was clarifying up what the Bible says, and then you go and have a rage about something totally different.
Yes, we are talking about modern laws, which is why I said that THESE LAW'S DO NOT APPLY ANYMORE. It seems to me as if you did not take in the full context of what I was saying, and whenever you hear the words: Bible, or God, or Jesus you go and have a troll.
I think the death sentence is not good at all i think if the death sentence was for anybody it would be for pedophiles because they are dirty disgusting deranged people that need the death penalty not help.
But don't all those bible laws fall under the law of Moses, which then would be fulfilled since christ came. Those laws were just given to the Israelites because they were super thick and hard of heart.
And the death penalty is situational. Cannibalism though....
But don't all those bible laws fall under the law of Moses,
There was law before Moses. Direct law from God to Adam and Eve: Which is why they were condemned. We were introduced to "Thou shall not murder" before Moses - Cain and Abel. Then there was the commandment to Abraham.
Religion does still play a role in how people think of certain things, but honestly for my part I would wish that general laws today are completely secular, since there is no 'one' religion we can orient justice on. I don't know if it is already the case or not, or in what degree, though.
Yes, we are talking about modern laws, which is why I said that THESE LAW'S DO NOT APPLY ANYMORE. It seems to me as if you did not take in the full context of what I was saying, and whenever you hear the words: Bible, or God, or Jesus you go and have a troll.
I don't really get what you're trying to argue.[/quote]
Only the "symbolic laws" do not matter anymore (not criminal laws such as murder). As demonstration, God told Peter to kill and eat. This would be directly going against the law of not eating blood.
Are you talking to me? Or Dumbbutdeadly? A bit confusing as you used my message for a quote but he quoted me just above your post, so I don't know if you are talking to me or Dumbbutdeady?
Rather than trying to jump into the middle of one of the currently running arguments and because this thread is already 6 pages long, I'm just gonna drop my ten cents right here..
Capital punishment is a necessary evil. The only argument that makes sense to me in opposition to it's existence is the (very real) concern of miscarriage. I disregard arguments concerning the sanctity of human life because I do not believe humans to be inherently special in any way, no more or less worthy of preservation than any other species with unchecked population growth. I realize I am in the minority with this opinion, however.
I also disregard any religious basis for it's exclusion as a form of punishment as virtually all recognized religion's holy texts cite multiple instances of it's use and I abhor the wealth of modern theological conceits and contradictions as a whole. Again, I realize I am in the minority with this opinion.
Ideally the purpose of capital punishment is twofold, permanently removing undesirable elements at no further expense to society and functioning as a deterrent to the creation of new potentially undesirable elements. The deterrent effect is open to much debate, just how effective any deterrent really is lies in the realm of theory and speculation.
As to the efficacy capital punishment one thing all parties surely can agree on it that indisputable fact that 100% of dead people do not re-offend.
Regarding miscarriage and the execution of the innocent, that is a vastly complex issue that frankly I do not think any existing justice system in the world could ever truly guarantee would not occur. I do not see this as a total barrier to the application of capital punished however, as I stated at the outset it's existence is a necessary evil. I realize that in some circumstances a gross injustice may occur, but when these instances do occur it can most often be attributed to negligence on the part of those charged with carefully applying the penalty. See the Cameron Todd Willingham case in Texas, the fact that an innocent man was executed is a direct result of negligence on the part of investigators.
As a result I think that while capital punishment is sharp blade to wield carelessly if we insist that those who wield it do so properly it's existence is more of a boon to society than a blight. I believe that if negligence on the part of any party involved in a case that could result in someone's execution is brought to light the punishment should be severe. This takes us back to the deterrent argument again but it can be argued that the effect of a deterrent should be simple reinforcement to those those charged charged with serving the law, whereas those bound to circumvent the law could more easily rationalize against it. With thoughtful and judicial application assured any form of capital punishment should do nothing but serve the best interests of a society as a whole.
Now, exactly which crimes a society deems worthy of capital punishment is a completely different argument.
The above is purely stream-of-consciousness and has not been proofread. Have fun with that, I suppose..
