PDA

View Full Version : Death Penalty


atomdanger
05-01-2009, 10:37 PM
For or against?
Maybe a short explanation.

Here (Washington state) you can have the needle, or the noose.
Washington.= Aggravated first-degree murder gets you death here,
defined as this. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=10.95.020

So in my state, I am for it.
Basically, if you kill an on duty cop, firefighter, or a judge, state attorney, etc..
Or you killed somebody while doing any of this.
(a) Robbery in the first or second degree;
(b) Rape in the first or second degree;
(c) Burglary in the first or second degree or residential burglary;
(d) Kidnapping in the first degree; or
(e) Arson in the first degree;

Plus a couple other things
(4) The person committed the murder pursuant to an agreement that he or she would receive money or any other thing of value for committing the murder;
(5) The person solicited another person to commit the murder and had paid or had agreed to pay money or any other thing of value for committing the murder;
(6) The person committed the murder to obtain or maintain his or her membership or to advance his or her position in the hierarchy of an organization, association, or identifiable group;

So yeah, I am for it.
If you do any of those things, I think its safe to say you deserve to die.
For some people sitting in prison is NOT a deterrent, but death is.
I don't know, some people don't deserve for tax payers to support them for the rest of their life, while they get better medical care than some tax payers, etc....

atomdanger
05-01-2009, 10:38 PM
Yeah yeah I messed up the poll

Yes = FOR
No = against

Vizion
05-01-2009, 10:40 PM
For.

And For More too....sometimes we just have to take a life in order to vindicate the crime which has been perpetrated.
I especially feel this way over child rape or murder.

atomdanger
05-01-2009, 10:42 PM
For.

And For More too....sometimes we just have to take a life in order to vindicate the crime which has been perpetrated.
I especially feel this way over child rape or murder.

Yeah..... I know it isn't being "understanding" but I hate that most states consider pedophilia a disease or mental problem and treat it with counselors, etc...

If anybody ever hurt one of my children people would die.

TexasRN
05-01-2009, 10:52 PM
I am for the death penalty and would fast track it even more than TX does. I say if you are found guilty beyond doubt, we shoot you that afternoon and the other inmates get to bury you. Bullets are cheap and there's no need for a retrial. I am for it because of the retribution aspect and the deterrent factor. If we shot the really bad felons the day they are found guilty, your felony crime rate would drop dramatically. Don't ask me to look up and research numbers though cuz I don't want to and I just don't give a hoot what the whiners say.


~Amy

rockdawg21
05-01-2009, 11:10 PM
For

Kill somebody, you should be killed back. You rape somebody, you should be raped back. Steal from somebody, you should be raped back :laugh:

Spiritwalker
05-02-2009, 12:10 AM
Well...... I say.....

Why should you only get 20 years for attempted murder??

The criminal shouldn't get a break just cause they were not able to follow through on their plans.

From my website

There are days when I feel that the world should listen to one person sometimes. That one person, being me. I come up with ideas that, in all honesty, someone smarter than I should have enacted long ago. Here they are. If you like them, you can email your local congressperson in regards. If you don't like them, fell free to explain why they are bad ideas. If you feel they are stupid, feel free to STFU. Are all of my ideas unique? I hope not!

Idea 1) 24 hour prisons - The justice system has to release convicts early every year due to over crowding. Well, they only need the bed for 8 hours a 24 hour period. The other 16 hours can be used else where. 4 hours in school or rehabilitation classes, 4 hours doing community service of some type ( work on highways.. whatever, giving lectures to local schools as to why they don't won't to be a convict) and 8 hours of work. Yes, work, find some company that can use these individuals, and pay them minimum wage, and tax those wages. That way when they have "done there time", not only do they have an education, a marketable skill, they also have some money to start out with. Of course this couldn't be done with some.. for those.. see below..

Idea 2) Stop playing around with the death penalty. Do it or don't. 20 years for appeals? Cmon.. If you don't want the death penalty, then fine, but some types of crimes can NOT be forgiven! Sexual Predators, Child molesters, rapists, murderers, habitual offenders. Toss the key away if you don't want them dead.. but don't let them back out.

Idea 3) Stop doing executions late at night! Put them on TV, do them on the court house lawn, make them PPVs for all I care. If we as a society can say that "this person deserves to die", we should be able to do this and if not be "proud" of it.. at least not hide from it. Also, this would be an EXCELLENT way of telling the people.. this is what we do to people who do "this". Sounds like a good deterrent to me.

atomdanger
05-02-2009, 12:46 AM
Well...... I say.....

Why should you only get 20 years for attempted murder??

The criminal shouldn't get a break just cause they were not able to follow through on their plans.

From my website

Idea 1) 24 hour prisons

Idea 3) Stop doing executions late at night! Put them on TV

Yeah, I think the problem with the attempted murder thing is that prosecutars can call anything they want attempted murder.
The trouble is proving you tried to kill the person,
You can want to hit somebody with a bat, or even stab them but not want them to die.

So it hits some gray area there IMO.

Idea 1)
Good idea on paper, but doesn't work IRL.
Too much money to be moving inmates, watching them, etc...
Also too much of a secutiry risk, there is a reason in maximum security prisons you are locked down 23 hours a day in your cell.
Because thats the only place that keeps staff and other inmates safe.
Yet people still get raped/murdered in Prison. Maybe work with min or medium security inmates though.
I do think we should use inmates for road construction, etc... Might as well make they pay society back.

Idea 3) I agree, public hangings all the way.

Buzzard
05-02-2009, 01:00 AM
For or against?
So yeah, I am for it.
If you do any of those things, I think its safe to say you deserve to die.
For some people sitting in prison is NOT a deterrent, but death is.
I don't know, some people don't deserve for tax payers to support them for the rest of their life, while they get better medical care than some tax payers, etc....

Do you have any evidence that shows the death penalty is a deterrent? Evidence that I have seen shows it not to be the case. Below is just one link.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

atomdanger
05-02-2009, 01:07 AM
Do you have any evidence that shows the death penalty is a deterrent? Evidence that I have seen shows it not to be the case. Below is just one link.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

Interesting link.

But does it take into consideration the murder rates in states that have it as opposed to states who don't?

Maybe some states who don't have a smaller murder rate and don't need it as much as states who do and have higher murder rates.
To me, a state having more murders show MORE need for the death penalty.

And honestly, I don't care if it is a deterrent or not,
if you kill people, cops, children, etc... and get convicted of murder 1 and get the death penalty,
well then you certainly don't deserve to live off the state forever.
Do you?

What I am saying is, you go to detention.
Forever... how does that make sense?
You get to hangout, harass cops, be part of a gang, be social, visit your family etc....
your victims don't get to do anything anymore, because they're dead.
Why should you?
and why should WE pay for you to get to do so?

Buzzard
05-02-2009, 01:11 AM
Interesting link.

But does it take into consideration the murder rates in states that have it as opposed to states who don't?

That's what the link shows.

Maybe some states who don't have a smaller murder rate and don't need it as much as states who do and have higher murder rates.
To me, a state having more murders show MORE need for the death penalty.

And honestly, I don't care if it is a deterrent or not,
if you kill people, cops, children, etc... and get convicted of murder 1 and get the death penalty,
well then you certainly don't deserve to live off the state forever.
Do you?

If you don't care if it is a deterrent, which the link I offered shows it's not, is it just about revenge then?

atomdanger
05-02-2009, 01:24 AM
If you don't care if it is a deterrent, which the link I offered shows it's not, is it just about revenge then?

No, its about a few things (for me, I can't speak for everybody).
For me, its about money.
It costs (depending on state, and security level) over 100 dollars to house an inmate, each day.
Taxpayers, are shelling out (at 100 per day) over 36K a year to house an inmate. In most places, a maximum security inmate is more like 150 - 200.
But even a medium (not somebody who was up for death) is around 100.
So you do the math on tax payers dollars.
On a state level that can seriously ad up.
Not to even get into medical costs when inmates get cancer,
or aids, or any other serious ailment that costs us hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat.

Oh, please don't argue that the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison because of appeals,
that has to do with court, and not the act of the death penalty.

Closure for victims family's / justice.
If you're choosing to kill civil servants, children, or viciously kill other human beings to be considered for death,
then what have you offered society for one?
and for two, the victims no longer get to live, why should you?
(at our cost, no less)

Respecting the value of human life: "It is by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life that we affirm the highest value of human life." (Edward Koch)

Public safety: Once a convicted murderer is executed, there is no chance that he will break out of jail and kill or injure someone.


Anyway, just to name a few.

J.B.
05-02-2009, 01:32 AM
If you don't care if it is a deterrent, which the link I offered shows it's not, is it just about revenge then?

It's about the punishment fitting the crime.

That link you posted doesn't prove anything anyway. Comparing neighboring states like Illinois and Wisconsin is pointless when you have a major city like Chicago in your state. Or comparing Iowa and Missouri, did they forget about St. Louis? Yeah, it's real dangerous in Des Moines... :laugh:

Buzzard
05-02-2009, 01:50 AM
No, its about a few things (for me, I can't speak for everybody).
For me, its about money.
It costs (depending on state, and security level) over 100 dollars to house an inmate, each day.
Taxpayers, are shelling out (at 100 per day) over 36K a year to house an inmate. In most places, a maximum security inmate is more like 150 - 200.
But even a medium (not somebody who was up for death) is around 100.
So you do the math on tax payers dollars.
On a state level that can seriously ad up.
Not to even get into medical costs when inmates get cancer,
or aids, or any other serious ailment that costs us hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat.

Oh, please don't argue that the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison because of appeals,
that has to do with court, and not the act of the death penalty.

Closure for victims family's / justice.
If you're choosing to kill civil servants, children, or viciously kill other human beings to be considered for death,
then what have you offered society for one?
and for two, the victims no longer get to live, why should you?
(at our cost, no less)

Respecting the value of human life: "It is by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life that we affirm the highest value of human life." (Edward Koch)

Public safety: Once a convicted murderer is executed, there is no chance that he will break out of jail and kill or injure someone.


Anyway, just to name a few.

I read a book a few months ago called The Innocent Man by John Grisham. http://www.jgrisham.com/the-innocent-man/

It is a true story about a man name Ron Williamson who was wrongly convicted and sentenced to death. His story is also told on the website The Innocence Project.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

While there are times in which I feel that I could personally kill someone for deeds done, I know that my thoughts at that moment are irrational. I see the death penalty not as punishment, but revenge. The fact that our system of finding guilt or innocence isn't 100% perfect leads me to rather err on the side of letting an innocent live and hopefully prove his innocence rather than killing him and having his innocence revealed after his death, where it doesn't do him a bit of good.

VCURamFan
05-02-2009, 01:52 AM
Buzzard, you're making a slight error in your thinking. The link you posted doesn't prove that the death is a deterrent, but it also doesn't disprove that it's a deterrent.

There's been a ton of studies done recently trying to figure this out one way or another & the best the researchers can come up with is "I dunno, we can't tell".

Buzzard
05-02-2009, 01:56 AM
It's about the punishment fitting the crime.

That link you posted doesn't prove anything anyway. Comparing neighboring states like Illinois and Wisconsin is pointless when you have a major city like Chicago in your state. Or comparing Iowa and Missouri, did they forget about St. Louis? Yeah, it's real dangerous in Des Moines... :laugh:

Show me something better than what I posted that shows that the death penalty is a deterrent. So many argue that the death penalty is a deterrent, but can't show anything to back it up. If so, how come so many states that have it still have the level of crime that they do? Sure doesn't seem like it deterred that many.

Miss Foxy
05-02-2009, 02:00 AM
I read a book a few months ago called The Innocent Man by John Grisham. http://www.jgrisham.com/the-innocent-man/

It is a true story about a man name Ron Williamson who was wrongly convicted and sentenced to death. His story is also told on the website The Innocence Project.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

While there are times in which I feel that I could personally kill someone for deeds done, I know that my thoughts at that moment are irrational. I see the death penalty not as punishment, but revenge. The fact that our system of finding guilt or innocence isn't 100% perfect leads me to rather err on the side of letting an innocent live and hopefully prove his innocence rather than killing him and having his innocence revealed after his death, where it doesn't do him a bit of good.
I believe if there is DNA evidence that proves without a doubt scientifically that the person commited murder or a heinous crime on a fellow human being then they outta be punished. Until you are a victim or have grieved over a person who was a victim I don't think you would fully understand. Recently that little girl Sandra Cantu was murdered and sexually assaulted by a monster named Melissa Huckaby do you think that lady deserves to breathe still?

Buzzard
05-02-2009, 02:07 AM
Buzzard, you're making a slight error in your thinking. The link you posted doesn't prove that the death is a deterrent, but it also doesn't disprove that it's a deterrent.

There's been a ton of studies done recently trying to figure this out one way or another & the best the researchers can come up with is "I dunno, we can't tell".

I know that my link doesn't prove nor disprove it as being a deterrent, though it does offer evidence to show that states without the DP have lower homicide rates than those with the DP. I offered it up to show that those states with the death penalty don't seem to deter criminals from crime as compared to states without the death penalty. Crimes occurs in all states, but the rates are lower in non-DP states.

Quoted from my link.

States Without the Death Penalty Have Better Record on Homicide Rates - A new survey by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty. The Times reports that ten of the twelve states without the death penalty have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above. During the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48% - 101% higher than in states without the death penalty.

Buzzard
05-02-2009, 02:22 AM
I believe if there is DNA evidence that proves without a doubt scientifically that the person commited murder or a heinous crime on a fellow human being then they outta be punished. Until you are a victim or have grieved over a person who was a victim I don't think you would fully understand. Recently that little girl Sandra Cantu was murdered and sexually assaulted by a monster named Melissa Huckaby do you think that lady deserves to breathe still?

First off, what makes you think I have never grieved for or been a victim of a violent crime? I had a co-worker who was murdered and she left behind a young child? I think the punishment for her killer of life in prison is much worse than the punishment of death. Death is too easy, life in prison in punishment. How is life in jail not a punishment? Even DNA evidence can wrongfully convict an innocent. Nothing is 100%. Put yourself in the shoes of a wrongfully convicted person about to die because of the DP. How about putting someone from your family in those shoes.

I think she deserves to breathe prison air. Dank, musty, moldy, sweaty, fart smelling prison air. I think she deserves to think of how she will never get freedom again and maybe by chance come to see how wrong she was and use the rest of her life to possibly accomplish something good in life. I don't believe that I nor you should have the power to take another human beings life. Some will say it's not a person doing the execution but the state. I don't buy that, the state is run by people, often times people who are guilty of other crimes of which they have never been caught.

Miss Foxy
05-02-2009, 02:27 AM
First off, what makes you think I have never grieved for or been a victim of a violent crime? I had a co-worker who was murdered and she left behind a young child? I think the punishment for her killer of life in prison is much worse than the punishment of death. Death is too easy, life in prison in punishment. How is life in jail not a punishment? Even DNA evidence can wrongfully convict an innocent. Nothing is 100%. Put yourself in the shoes of a wrongfully convicted person about to die because of the DP. How about putting someone from your family in those shoes.

I think she deserves to breathe prison air. Dank, musty, moldy, sweaty, fart smelling prison air. I think she deserves to think of how she will never get freedom again and maybe by chance come to see how wrong she was and use the rest of her life to possibly accomplish something good in life. I don't believe that I nor you should have the power to take another human beings life. Some will say it's not a person doing the execution but the state. I don't buy that, the state is run by people, often times people who are guilty of other crimes of which they have never been caught.
First of all I wasnt come off sassy, but since you wanna go there lets do it!
What in the world would this demonic woman be able to accomplish with the rest of her life? I believe your punishment should fit your crime. Gee spending the rest of your life behind bars with access to food, water, shelter, mail, visitors.....blah, blah, blah that is worse punishment? Sounds like the good life! Some people are sleeping on benches and in parks and most of them cowards in prison that committed these sick crimes are at Club Med...Oh at the expense of us taxpayers!:angry:

Vizion
05-02-2009, 02:36 AM
Sounds like the good life! Some people are sleeping on benches and in parks and most of them cowards in prison that committed these sick crimes are at Club Med...Oh at the expense of us taxpayers!:angry:3 hots and a cot x 30 years in max security = on average 2,000,000 dollars. 10 yrs of appeals on death row = 1.4 million.

Buzzard
05-02-2009, 02:40 AM
First of all I wasnt come off sassy, but since you wanna go there lets do it!
What in the world would this demonic woman be able to accomplish with the rest of her life? I believe your punishment should fit your crime. Gee spending the rest of your life behind bars with access to food, water, shelter, mail, visitors.....blah, blah, blah that is worse punishment? Sounds like the good life! Some people are sleeping on benches and in parks and most of them cowards in prison that committed these sick crimes are at Club Med...Oh at the expense of us taxpayers!:angry:

You get sassy all you wish, I'll choose to remain focused.:wink:

I responded to you not in a sassy way, but just wanted you to know that I have qualified my opinion in the knowledge of what went on with my co-worker. We had a very good friendship and work relationship. I still miss her to this day and my co-workers and I talk about her quite often, even though it was over 14 years ago that this horrible crime happened.

I don't want to do a bunch of what ifs, but I can if you wish me to answer your first question with the examples I can give. I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't think of life in prison as being anything other than a living hell.

Here is the page which lead me to the quote I gave above. There is much to read through there, and I won't be able to get through it all tonight. Not that I need those pages or arguments to define my opinion, but I do like the opportunity to possibly learn something new which will also help me to become a better person.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/religion-and-death-penalty

From http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/criminal.shtml

Renewing Our Call to End the Death Penalty
In these reflections, we bishops have focused on how our faith and teaching can offer a distinctive Catholic perspective on crime and punishment, responsibility and rehabilitation. These reflections do not focus on the death penalty as our primary concern. In this context, however, we wish to renew our call for an end to capital punishment.

I chose to use this page first and foremost because of which religion I was originally brought up in.

Miss Foxy
05-02-2009, 02:45 AM
You get sassy all you wish, I'll choose to remain focused.:wink:

I responded to you not in a sassy way, but just wanted you to know that I have qualified my opinion in the knowledge of what went on with my co-worker. We had a very good friendship and work relationship. I still miss her to this day and my co-workers and I talk about her quite often, even though it was over 14 years ago that this horrible crime happened.

I don't want to do a bunch of what ifs, but I can if you wish me to answer your first question with the examples I can give. I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't think of life in prison as being anything other than a living hell.

Here is the page which lead me to the quote I gave above. There is much to read through there, and I won't be able to get through it all tonight. Not that I need those pages or arguments to define my opinion, but I do like the opportunity to possibly learn something new which will also help me to become a better person.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/religion-and-death-penalty

From http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/criminal.shtml



I chose to use this page first and foremost because of which religion I was originally brought up in.
Thanks for the link. However your mind is made up and so is mine. That's also fine n dandy that you want to become a better person by opening your views. Unfortunately for me some things won't change and I know I am striving to be a better person with many things in my life. See ya around the forum.:)

atomdanger
05-02-2009, 03:18 AM
3 hots and a cot x 30 years in max security = on average 2,000,000 dollars. 10 yrs of appeals on death row = 1.4 million.

Right. O_o

medic92
05-02-2009, 04:15 AM
For me it's not about deterrence and it's not about revenge. It's about justice. A person who takes someone's life should pay with their own. That's justice.

Studies that compare homicide rates in states with and without the death penalty are inherently flawed in that they tend to ignore other demographics of the particular states such as population density, median income levels, education levels, etc. A state with a large number of people living well below the poverty line will more likely have more crime including homicides. A state with large cities will have more crime than a sparsely populated state.

I know from a personal standpoint that the death penalty is a deterrent in some instances. There have been many times that I've thought about just driving right over some numbskull who cut me off or did something else incredibly stupid, but didn't because I couldn't remember if the state I was in was a death penalty state or not. :wink:

Vizion
05-02-2009, 05:00 AM
The death penalty would deter some criminals, not all. But that is hardly the only point. I think we need to enact mandatory death sentences on certain crimes when proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Child rape, child murder, first degree pre-med murder, certain illegal drug manufacturars, all card carrying members of NAMBLA, traitors to national security, and of course terrorists who were caught in the act.

Bonnie
05-02-2009, 06:36 AM
I don't know about "mandatory". Sometimes, unfortunately, someone gets "snagged" by mandatory laws or sentencing that really doesn't fit their situation or circumstance. (In death penalty cases, where their guilt has been proven, I don't have a problem with it.)

Right now we're seeing this with pornography laws and these teenagers who are "sexting".

I do think there is a place for capital punishment/death penalty. There are people on this earth who have no sense of right and wrong and no conscience where their fellow human being is concerned. No amount of prison or time is going to change that.

Spiritwalker
05-02-2009, 12:19 PM
Do you have any evidence that shows the death penalty is a deterrent? Evidence that I have seen shows it not to be the case. Below is just one link.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates


The deterrent is simple....

The state kills a person convicted of murder. If they are dead.. they don't kill again.

And sooner or later.. someone that is thinking about killing someone will say..."whoa....if I am caught, I could die."

If that were to happen Just Once... then the theory is sound..

Spiritwalker
05-02-2009, 12:23 PM
If you don't care if it is a deterrent, which the link I offered shows it's not, is it just about revenge then?


Revenge? Sure why not. People who have their lives taken from them, do they not deserve some kind of justice?

What if I offered a link that shows it IS a deterrent?

Primadawn
05-02-2009, 12:50 PM
First off, what makes you think I have never grieved for or been a victim of a violent crime? I had a co-worker who was murdered and she left behind a young child? I think the punishment for her killer of life in prison is much worse than the punishment of death. Death is too easy, life in prison in punishment. How is life in jail not a punishment? Even DNA evidence can wrongfully convict an innocent. Nothing is 100%. Put yourself in the shoes of a wrongfully convicted person about to die because of the DP. How about putting someone from your family in those shoes.

I think she deserves to breathe prison air. Dank, musty, moldy, sweaty, fart smelling prison air. I think she deserves to think of how she will never get freedom again and maybe by chance come to see how wrong she was and use the rest of her life to possibly accomplish something good in life. I don't believe that I nor you should have the power to take another human beings life. Some will say it's not a person doing the execution but the state. I don't buy that, the state is run by people, often times people who are guilty of other crimes of which they have never been caught.

Frankly, it drives me crazy when people say this--that killers living the rest of their lives in prison is a more deserving punishment than death. Lemme clue you in---a person that kills other people for kicks and gets caught generally doesn't sit around in prison for the rest of their lives feeling bad about it. They take advantage of social programs, get degrees, form bonds and "family" groups with other prisoners, or commit further crimes on other inmates. Yeah....that's worse...:rolleyes:

rearnakedchoke
05-02-2009, 12:57 PM
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone

Bonnie
05-03-2009, 04:16 PM
This is not about "casting stones". You have to have law and order so that civilization is not thrown into chaos and lawlessness. I believe GOD covers this when he speaks of "man's law" here on earth. Maybe one of our more learned members can speak to this. :)

rearnakedchoke
05-03-2009, 06:51 PM
This is not about "casting stones". You have to have law and order so that civilization is not thrown into chaos and lawlessness. I believe GOD covers this when he speaks of "man's law" here on earth. Maybe one of our more learned members can speak to this. :)
you can have law and order without the death penalty ... creating a law to kill someone if they committ a crime doesn't make it okay ... there are plenty of countries with low homicide and crime rates that do not have the death penalty, so it really isn't a detterent ....

J.B.
05-03-2009, 07:53 PM
you can have law and order without the death penalty ... creating a law to kill someone if they committ a crime doesn't make it okay ... there are plenty of countries with low homicide and crime rates that do not have the death penalty, so it really isn't a detterent ....

I don't get the whole "deterrent" argument, as that is just silly. No law is going to be an ultimate deterrent to ANY crime. The death penalty is about practicality in my opinion. People who commit crimes that are worthy of the death penalty are not people that are ever going to be allowed to live in society again, that is plain and simple.

Keeping them locked up for years and years is not only a financial burden on the rest of society, but also a grave injustice to the victims and their families. As now the families tax dollars have to go into a system that pays to harbor a person who victimized them in a horrible way.

I get why some people are against the death penalty, I completely do. However, I just don't agree that some people should get to keep on living after committing some of the heinous crimes I hear about on the news all the time.

Tyburn
05-03-2009, 10:01 PM
Famously during my time at Bradford University, there was a great debate about State Execution.

England used to Execute prisoners all the time, but it abolished it not to long after the second world war.

I've always been pro-death penalty.

Someone challenged me and said that perhaps I oughta get in touch with some people in America on death row, get to know them, and see if I still was pro death pentalty. So I did.

I spoke to two guys in two different states for a number of years, through an agency known as "Human Writes" One of the guys probably didnt committ the crime, and during the time I wrote to him he won an appeal and had his sentance reduced to life encarceration. The other guy certainly did what he was charged with. He seemed a pleasent enough guy...but it hasnt changed my mind.

However...I go further then just being pro-death penatly.

I dont see why we offer to prisoners Execution, and then keep them waiting for years. Sorry but one appeal, and then kill them. They deserve minimal rights, but not being kept forever, using up resources.

Secondly...I think you should either hang them or fry them. DONT give them a leathal injection...thats what you do to beloved pets!! its too good for them!

Tyburn
05-03-2009, 10:03 PM
I hasten to add, they should bring it back in England...and forget a private execution.

Executions should be a spectator Sport. They should bring back the gallows at Tyburn, and we should all watch the procession and the hanging...they'd put PPVs like the UFC out of business if they charged...not joking...they used to get 50 THOUSAND live attending Tyburn :laugh:

ufcfan2
05-04-2009, 12:02 AM
I'm for it simple as that. It may not be a 'deturrent',but gosh darn it think its a system that is needed.
Our jails are way overcrowded for various of reason and having guys whos fate is sealed take up valuable resources and draing the systems money..I think more than anything it kindof gives the victims families sometype of relief and justice.
What about 'lifers' their never gonna see the light of day what about them they are wasting valuable resources as well. What should be done with these guys?

Tyburn
05-04-2009, 12:13 AM
This explains nicely what used to happen in England. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_sM86GnH7A

We should bring it back :ninja:

"There. At the very core of London, in the heart of its business and animation, in the midst of a whirl of noise and motion, stemming, as it were, the giant currents of life that flow ceaselessly on from different quarters and meet beneith its walls, Stands, New Gate...!"

NewGate Prison Wall still exists...the funny thing is that Its the wall that backs onto Amen Court (the place where the Clergy of Saint Paul's Cathedral live! I've walked on the plot that was part of New Gate countless times. Its now reduced to a small Court House. YES, the bells you here at the 59 second mark are Saint Paul's! its THAT close!!

"Doctor Johnson told me "The age is running mad after innovation, Tyburn is not safe from the fury of innovation, Sir it is NOT an improvement"

Yep...they banned the public hangings because they attracted to much attention, and started to interfere with the cities expansion. Tyburn is now in the Centre of the city...where it had existed for hundreds of years outside the urban area, I doubt even the UFC could control 50 thousands blood thirsty fans...neither could Central London in the late 1700s :'(

First the hangings went back to Newgate...then they went inside Newgate...then they kinda stopped altoghether...

Hughes_GOAT
05-04-2009, 12:21 AM
kill them all, let God sort them out.

mscomc
05-04-2009, 12:49 AM
Hey guys, I've been a way from the forums for a while, but i get I found a doozy to get myself back into the swing of things :wink: , so heres my two cents.

I am for the death penalty....but I dont beleive that the day you are convicted of heaven forbid a crime like rape and murder or something else that is heinous that you are put to death the week after, for the simple reasons as follows:

1) The canadian law system (very similar to US law) in my oppinion is flawed big time. Heres why, from what i have seen attending court sesions (for my own education purposes) and ones that I have seen in Phildadelphia when visiting relatives; rather than seeking justice, it appears to be this a"arch-rival" game of chess between the prosectuor and the defense...who is the better lawyer. The prosecutors job is simply to get convictions, and defense is make the burdon of proof harder for the prosectuor. And then, after it all, we have to give if off to a jury....who many times cant help but bring their personal beleifs into the matter or sometimes (and its not THEIR fault), they dont understand certain aspects of the law, or the criteria that need to be met for conviction. I mean lets face it, these guys havent gone to law school for 4 years and studied this.

2) The old phrase, it is worse to convict 1 innocent person then let 10 guilty ones go free. I personally beleive this. I'll give you an example that really swayed me. As a scientist, i get all excited about the use of all these new DNA tools in crimefighting and all these other great techniques, as you can imagine I salivate when CSI comes on :laugh: . But, DNA evidence is not the end all be all. Heres an example, and this truly made made my stomach turn. There was a case here in Canada many years ago in the west part of the country. I beleive the case went something as follows..... So there was this women who was sexually assaulted by a man. Durring the horffic ordeal, he never used a rubber and for lack of a better word( please forgive me) ejaculated on her many times. When she reported this to the police, she first gave the name of a man she had been seeing, and the man was married (they had been having an affair). They brought the guy in and he denied it. Now I dont know all the details, but her assualt was sooooo gruesome that anyone one woulda probably want to break this guy in half who this to her. Anway, the guy VOLUNTEERD his DNA, thats how confident he was that he would be vindicated. But apparently, the medical examiner had herd of this gruesome tail and only swabbed a few parts of the woman that would be really easy to test, he later admitted in a deposition that he thouhgt he too could speed the whole process up as it were. So he did the mouth, hands, neck etc Basically places that could be explained by kissing or fooling around. The DNA test obviously came back positive for the accused man. Who still swore he did nothing, and that it was true he had kissed the woman that day, he never slept with her. Long story short, he gets convicted, and gets 20 years if i recall. After 10, in some kind of appeal (im not good on law terms) they get another medical examiner to do the test. It turns out the samples that were taken from the womans clothes were DNA of another man...who they eventually caught and he actually admitted to it. So the other guy was let go. BUT here is the crappy part, the other guy spent 10 years in jail. He was raped, now has HIV, his family wants nothing to with him as the re-located and he cant find them, professionally he is ruined, he didnt even know how to use the transit system as it had changed in the 10 years he was locked up, TV, internet, getting a loan etc etc....... I only know this because he came to speak at my intro to criminology class when i was an undergrad.

So my point is, if you want to kill someone for a very henious crime, then i think its justified. But, if you want to deprive someone of their liberty and kill them as an act of justice, then I think you need to be damn sure you have the right guy. I would suggest that after a conviction of your peers (the jury) the courts spend a good 2-3 years solidy re-investigating every aspect of your case...with trained law professionals and forensic analysts only, not with the bias that "its my job to convict you" or "i have to defend you cuz im getting paid to do so", but to investiagte if you are innocent, in any way. And i think that these cases should get priority in a court system because of the aformentioned. If after all this effort, they still cant find ANYTHING to imply thtat you may be innocent, then I think death is justified. Just my oppinion, have a good night all.

rearnakedchoke
05-04-2009, 12:52 AM
Hey guys, I've been a way from the forums for a while, but i guess I found a doozy to get myself back into the swing of things :wink: , so heres my two cents.

I am for the death penalty....but I dont beleive that the day you are convicted of heaven forbid a crime like rape and murder or something else that is heinous that you are put to death the week after, for the simple reasons as follows:

1) The canadian law system (very similar to US law) in my oppinion is flawed big time. Heres why, from what i have seen attending court sesions (for my own education purposes) and ones that I have seen in Phildadelphia when visiting relatives; rather than seeking justice, it appears to be this a"arch-rival" game of chess between the prosectuor and the defense...who is the better lawyer. The prosecutors job is simply to get convictions, and defense is make the burdon of proof harder for the prosectuor. And then, after it all, we have to give if off to a jury....who many times cant help but bring their personal beleifs into the matter or sometimes (and its not THEIR fault), they dont understand certain aspects of the law, or the criteria that need to be met for conviction. I mean lets face it, these guys havent gone to law school for 4 years and studied this.

2) The old phrase, it is worse to convict 1 innocent person then let 10 guilty ones go free. I personally beleive this. I'll give you an example that really swayed me. As a scientist, i get all excited about the use of all these new DNA tools in crimefighting and all these other great techniques, as you can imagine I salivate when CSI comes on :laugh: . But, DNA evidence is not the end all be all. Heres an example, and this truly made made my stomach turn. There was a case here in Canada many years ago in the west part of the country. I beleive the case went something as follows..... So there was this women who was sexually assaulted by a man. Durring the horffic ordeal, he never used a rubber and for lack of a better word( please forgive me) ejaculated on her many times. When she reported this to the police, she first gave the name of a man she had been seeing, and the man was married (they had been having an affair). They brought the guy in and he denied it. Now I dont know all the details, but her assualt was sooooo gruesome that anyone one woulda probably want to break this guy in half who this to her. Anway, the guy VOLUNTEERD his DNA, thats how confident he was that he would be vindicated. But apparently, the medical examiner had herd of this gruesome tail and only swabbed a few parts of the woman that would be really easy to test, he later admitted in a deposition that he thouhgt he too could speed the whole process up as it were. So he did the mouth, hands, neck etc Basically places that could be explained by kissing or fooling around. The DNA test obviously came back positive for the accused man. Who still swore he did nothing, and that it was true he had kissed the woman that day, he never slept with her. Long story short, he gets convicted, and gets 20 years if i recall. After 10, in some kind of appeal (im not good on law terms) they get another medical examiner to do the test. It turns out the samples that were taken from the womans clothes were DNA of another man...who they eventually caught and he actually admitted to it. So the other guy was let go. BUT here is the crappy part, the other guy spent 10 years in jail. He was raped, now has HIV, his family wants nothing to with him as the re-located and he cant find them, professionally he is ruined, he didnt even know how to use the transit system as it had changed in the 10 years he was locked up, TV, internet, getting a loan etc etc....... I only know this because he came to speak at my intro to criminology class when i was an undergrad.

So my point is, if you want to kill someone for a very henious crime, then i think its justified. But, if you want to deprive someone of their liberty and kill them as an act of justice, then I think you need to be damn sure you have the right guy. I would suggest that after a conviction of your peers (the jury) the courts spend a good 2-3 years solidy re-investigating every aspect of your case...with trained law professionals and forensic analysts only, not with the bias that "its my job to convict you" or "i have to defend you cuz im getting paid to do so", but to investiagte if you are innocent, in any way. And i think that these cases should get priority in a court system because of the aformentioned. If after all this effort, they still cant find ANYTHING to imply thtat you may be innocent, then I think death is justified. Just my oppinion, have a good night all.
i guess when god says thou shalt not kill, i take that literally .... jesus never said killing is ok, so i don't know how any christian can think capital punishment is justifiable .......................

rearnakedchoke
05-04-2009, 04:04 PM
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/04/laos.british.woman.drugs.trial/index.html

Tyburn
05-04-2009, 04:22 PM
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/04/laos.british.woman.drugs.trial/index.html
They could fight for her Extradition I suppose, and then keep her locked up in England using my taxes.

Or we could let Laos decide, since she was smuggling drugs on their territory.

The fact the Mother is clueless as to why her innocent daughter might even be in Laos smacks the the woman at least lied to her parents. You dont tell you mother your on holiday in London...then turn up in Laos by accident do you. That in itself shows that somethings a bit...amiss.

Hate to be harsh...but we should let Laos deal with it. If they find her guilty, thats there business...if they find her innocent, then they should keep her in one of their prisons...just like that MMA artist whose still locked up in Morroco

BUT...if they find her Guilty, they should suspend sentance until she gives Birth. Its not the Childs fault is it.

VCURamFan
05-04-2009, 04:25 PM
i guess when god says thou shalt not kill, i take that literally .... jesus never said killing is ok, so i don't know how any christian can think capital punishment is justifiable .......................You're mis-quoting the Bible. The 6th command isn't "Thou shalt not kill". This would mean that all the wars God ordered the Israelites to wage would have been sin. Since we know that God can't sin, or command a sin, then this is clearly not the correct translation.

The correct translation of the the verse is "Thou shalt not murder". Since we seems to be taking God's Word so literally (as I believe it is right for us to do), anyone wanna guess what God prescribed as the punishment for murder?:Whistle:

Tyburn
05-04-2009, 04:25 PM
i guess when god says thou shalt not kill, i take that literally .... jesus never said killing is ok, so i don't know how any christian can think capital punishment is justifiable .......................
Really...Havent you even bothered to look in the Law thread on this Forum that I started?

GOD calls for Adultorers to be "put to death" WTF do you think he means by that? He means the State CAN carry out acts of Justice involving Death in some cases. So....STATE punishment is NOT Murder. Niether is being in the armed Forces and killing...GOD also at times hands whole Cities over to His powers and orders the execution of Women and Children.

State Executions are Christian
Military opporations involving Killings are Christian

Murder is not.

Tyburn
05-04-2009, 04:26 PM
You're mis-quoting the Bible. The 6th command isn't "Thou shalt not kill". This would mean that all the wars God ordered the Israelites to wage would have been sin. Since we know that God can't sin, or command a sin, then this is clearly not the correct translation.

The correct translation of the the verse is "Thou shalt not murder". Since we seems to be taking God's Word so literally (as I believe it is right for us to do), anyone wanna guess what God prescribed as the punishment for murder?:Whistle:
:laugh: we posted at the same time with a single brain cell :happydancing:

VCURamFan
05-04-2009, 04:30 PM
They could fight for her Extradition I suppose, and then keep her locked up in England using my taxes.

Or we could let Laos decide, since she was smuggling drugs on their territory.

The fact the Mother is clueless as to why her innocent daughter might even be in Laos smacks the the woman at least lied to her parents. You dont tell you mother your on holiday in London...then turn up in Laos by accident do you. That in itself shows that somethings a bit...amiss.

Hate to be harsh...but we should let Laos deal with it. If they find her guilty, thats there business...if they find her innocent, then they should keep her in one of their prisons...just like that MMA artist whose still locked up in Morroco

BUT...if they find her Guilty, they should suspend sentance until she gives Birth. Its not the Childs fault is it.The trial hasn't even been started yet. Here are the only known facts: she's in jail, she's pregnant, they charged her with drug trafficking. That's it. She hasn't been convicted of anything. She hasn't been sentenced to anything. As of this moment, the lawyers from Reprieve haven't even gotten to meet with her yet. Even if the death penalty is the "normal" sentence for a conviction of this crime, the trial won't be over until well after the baby's born, so it's not like Laos is trying to murder unborn children.

That's for American abortion docs to do.

VCURamFan
05-04-2009, 04:31 PM
:laugh: we posted at the same time with a single brain cell :happydancing:Man, if I've only got a single brain-cell AND I'm sharing it with you, there's no way I'll finish these papers in time!!:scared0011:

J.B.
05-04-2009, 04:38 PM
Man, if I've only got a single brain-cell AND I'm sharing it with you, there's no way I'll finish these papers in time!!:scared0011:

:laugh:

Crisco
05-04-2009, 04:41 PM
You're mis-quoting the Bible. The 6th command isn't "Thou shalt not kill". This would mean that all the wars God ordered the Israelites to wage would have been sin. Since we know that God can't sin, or command a sin, then this is clearly not the correct translation.

The correct translation of the the verse is "Thou shalt not murder". Since we seems to be taking God's Word so literally (as I believe it is right for us to do), anyone wanna guess what God prescribed as the punishment for murder?:Whistle:

DING DING DING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!

Tyburn
05-04-2009, 04:46 PM
The trial hasn't even been started yet. Here are the only known facts: she's in jail, she's pregnant, they charged her with drug trafficking. That's it. She hasn't been convicted of anything. She hasn't been sentenced to anything. As of this moment, the lawyers from Reprieve haven't even gotten to meet with her yet. Even if the death penalty is the "normal" sentence for a conviction of this crime, the trial won't be over until well after the baby's born, so it's not like Laos is trying to murder unborn children.

That's for American abortion docs to do.
Well...I dont know how quickly there Trials are. Those countries with the death penalty can often be quite quick (The United States being an obvious exception) If it were England...the Trial would take longer then her whole pregnancy...and we dont even do the death sentance :laugh:

Tyburn
05-04-2009, 04:48 PM
Man, if I've only got a single brain-cell AND I'm sharing it with you, there's no way I'll finish these papers in time!!:scared0011:
If you shared my brain cell you'd get A+ in all your papers :laugh:

Im kidding...I only got As in a few things at University....in school I got As for effort only.... :unsure-1:

VCURamFan
05-04-2009, 04:50 PM
Well...I dont know how quickly there Trials are. Those countries with the death penalty can often be quite quick (The United States being an obvious exception) If it were England...the Trial would take longer then her whole pregnancy...and we dont even do the death sentance :laugh:Yeah, but now there's a British lawyer involved, & the British press, so that'll drag out the precedings. Never underestimate a Englishmen's ability to turn something short & simply into something long & complicated!!:laugh:

Crisco
05-04-2009, 04:51 PM
Yeah, but now there's a British lawyer involved, & the British press, so that'll drag out the precedings. Never underestimate a Englishmen's ability to turn something short & simply into something long & complicated!!:laugh:

:laugh: The Daveku. :tongue0011:

VCURamFan
05-04-2009, 04:53 PM
:laugh: The Daveku. :tongue0011:Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaxctly!!:la ugh:

J.B.
05-04-2009, 05:07 PM
:laugh: The Daveku. :tongue0011:

:laugh:

rearnakedchoke
05-04-2009, 05:30 PM
You're mis-quoting the Bible. The 6th command isn't "Thou shalt not kill". This would mean that all the wars God ordered the Israelites to wage would have been sin. Since we know that God can't sin, or command a sin, then this is clearly not the correct translation.

The correct translation of the the verse is "Thou shalt not murder". Since we seems to be taking God's Word so literally (as I believe it is right for us to do), anyone wanna guess what God prescribed as the punishment for murder?:Whistle:

Let me ask you this .. if instead of a prostitute who was going to be stoned .. had it been a murderer, do you think Jesus still would have said "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" ... ? I don't think Jesus would have not said it no matter what the person did .. when does Jesus say it is ok to kill killers?

VCURamFan
05-04-2009, 05:45 PM
Let me ask you this .. if instead of a prostitute who was going to be stoned .. had it been a murderer, do you think Jesus still would have said "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" ... ? I don't think Jesus would have not said it no matter what the person did .. when does Jesus say it is ok to kill killers?Jesus was not attempting to change any of the Old Testament laws. He was making a point to the Pharisees that no one is perfect and that we have all sinned. Here are Christ's own words concerning his relation ship with the Old Testament (emphasis added):

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Clearly, Christ does not disagree with the Laws He & the Father & the Holy Spirit gave to Israel. Christ's purpose was to show that the Law is meant to reveal our corruption & need of a Savior to us. The Pharisees had perverted it into a way of elevating themselves over others through self-righteousness. In the passage you mentioned, Christ is just reminding them, and all of us, that we are sinful human beings.

Tyburn
05-04-2009, 05:50 PM
Let me ask you this .. if instead of a prostitute who was going to be stoned .. had it been a murderer, do you think Jesus still would have said "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" ... ? I don't think Jesus would have not said it no matter what the person did .. when does Jesus say it is ok to kill killers?
Are you Jesus?

Jesus says that not a jot of the Law is changed...except for the fact that those who accept him dont end up receiving the punishments after death....Why dont they receive the punishments after death.

Because Jesus received the after death punishments on their behalf.

This is the fundemental basis of Christianity. :)

Tyburn
05-04-2009, 06:38 PM
Never underestimate a Englishmen's ability to turn something short & simply into something long & complicated!!:laugh:
Its a gift :tongue0011:


:unsure:



:laugh:

Buzzard
05-04-2009, 11:09 PM
You're mis-quoting the Bible. The 6th command isn't "Thou shalt not kill". This would mean that all the wars God ordered the Israelites to wage would have been sin. Since we know that God can't sin, or command a sin, then this is clearly not the correct translation.

The correct translation of the the verse is "Thou shalt not murder". Since we seems to be taking God's Word so literally (as I believe it is right for us to do), anyone wanna guess what God prescribed as the punishment for murder?:Whistle:

He's not misquoting anything. It clearly states in the two bibles I have here "Thou Shalt Not Kill." You change things to make it more convenient to do what you wish rather than following what it says.

Tyburn
05-04-2009, 11:12 PM
He's not misquoting anything. It clearly states in the two bibles I have here "Thou Shalt Not Kill." You change things to make it more convenient to do what you wish rather than following what it says.
Really...you read Hebrew do you?

Never mind the English Translation.

The true pragmatic of the commandment is that you cant murder

Buzzard
05-04-2009, 11:23 PM
Really...Havent you even bothered to look in the Law thread on this Forum that I started?

GOD calls for Adultorers to be "put to death" WTF do you think he means by that? He means the State CAN carry out acts of Justice involving Death in some cases. So....STATE punishment is NOT Murder. Niether is being in the armed Forces and killing...GOD also at times hands whole Cities over to His powers and orders the execution of Women and Children.

State Executions are Christian
Military opporations involving Killings are Christian

Murder is not.

How quaint that you think you know what God means.

Tyburn
05-04-2009, 11:53 PM
How quaint that you think you know what God means.
Just because you struggle with understanding simple pragmatics :laugh:

J.B.
05-04-2009, 11:54 PM
He's not misquoting anything. It clearly states in the two bibles I have here "Thou Shalt Not Kill." You change things to make it more convenient to do what you wish rather than following what it says.

The Bible has been re-translated numerous times, and it can be confusing. Nobody is changing anything, it is widely accepted that the term kill refers to murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

Max
05-05-2009, 12:59 AM
I have a question for those who are against the death penalty, are you also against war?

que
05-05-2009, 01:41 AM
even though i support it, i still think living the rest of your life in a sh*tty prison is worse than being painlessly put to sleep with a needle. if the courts really wanted to punish someone, they would let them live as long as they can to contemplate what a horrible person they are and let them live in their misery

J.B.
05-05-2009, 01:56 AM
Thank you to the Mod

Buzzard
05-05-2009, 01:59 AM
Really...you read Hebrew do you?

Never mind the English Translation.

The true pragmatic of the commandment is that you cant murder

Did I say that my two bibles are written in Hebrew and that I read them in that language? No I didn't, so try again.

Being that the Bible needed to be translated, how can you be sure that the rest of it is correctly translated? Do you read Hebrew and have you done your own translation from the original manuscripts?

Buzzard
05-05-2009, 02:06 AM
I have a question for those who are against the death penalty, are you also against war?

I'm not pro-war or anti-war. I was not for the illegal war in Iraq which the Bush administration brought us into. Now if we need to go to war to actually protect our country from attack, then we must do what needs to be done.

What comparisons are you trying to make between the DP and war?

J.B.
05-05-2009, 02:24 AM
Being that the Bible needed to be translated, how can you be sure that the rest of it is correctly translated?

Translation is not the problem. Interpretation is. The Bible does contain God's message, which is clear, but the book was still written by man, which makes its fallible. So, it's easy to get confused in some of the gray areas of dialogue, but make no mistake God's message is loud and clear.

It's easy to poke holes in any structure if you spend enough time looking for weak spots, but just because you may be able find a few don't mean you can always knock the building down that way.

Max
05-05-2009, 02:33 AM
I'm not pro-war or anti-war. I was not for the illegal war in Iraq which the Bush administration brought us into. Now if we need to go to war to actually protect our country from attack, then we must do what needs to be done.

What comparisons are you trying to make between the DP and war?
In every war people are killed and in most cases it is one soldier killing another. In most cases the soldier that is killed is killed simply because he is following the orders given to him by his country and the soldier doing the killing is doing so because he is ordered to by his country. Do you think that the soldier that is doing the killing is breaking the commandment? What about the pilot that drops a bomb or the Special Forces Unit that is sent out to eliminate someone?

NateR
05-05-2009, 02:37 AM
He's not misquoting anything. It clearly states in the two bibles I have here "Thou Shalt Not Kill." You change things to make it more convenient to do what you wish rather than following what it says.

I bet those two Bibles also state that GOD commands the death penalty for anyone who works on the Sabbath, takes GOD's name in vain, and disobeys their parents.

If "thou shalt not kill" is meant to be taken as against capital punishment, then why would GOD then institute capital punishment? Obviously there is more to it than what your English translation is revealing.

There are at least 8 Hebrew words in the Old Testament that are translated as "kill." In the instance of Exodus 20:13, the Hebrew word used is "rasah" which specifically translates as "to murder" referring to premeditated murder.

Clearly, you've never truly studied the Bible (and, no, a superficial reading of an English translation does not count as studying, you have to go back to the original languages), otherwise you would have known this.

Max
05-05-2009, 02:53 AM
I say we just get rid of the Death Penalty as we know it and have people convicted of murder fight Fedor in a MMA fight to the death.

Buzzard
05-05-2009, 03:18 AM
Translation is not the problem. Interpretation is. The Bible does contain God's message, which is clear, but the book was still written by man, which makes its fallible. So, it's easy to get confused in some of the gray areas of dialogue, but make no mistake God's message is loud and clear.

It's easy to poke holes in any structure if you spend enough time looking for weak spots, but just because you may be able find a few don't mean you can always knock the building down that way.


I didn't want to get into religion in this thread, but since I wasn't the first to bring it up, I hope you don't mind me continuing along this path. To get this clear, are you stating that the Bible may have mistakes in it?

If the Bible is the true word of God, I should not be able to poke any holes in it. There are too many inaccuracies and inconsistencies in it for me to believe that it was divinely written. If there is at least one error, then I can't believe without question everything else that is written in it is the absolute truth.

Back to the death penalty and religion. Not knowing which religion you practice, my question to you is if you are in agreement with your denominations stance on the DP, and what their stance is. Here is a link of many denominations and their position in regard to the DP.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/religion-and-death-penalty

I have read the policies of 4 random Christian denominations in there, and all 4 have been against it. Why are so many of you closing your hearts to the goodness that Jesus preached? Do you think that the distribution of justice is equally applied to those that are poor, non-white or both in this country?

Buzzard
05-05-2009, 03:36 AM
1I bet those two Bibles also state that GOD commands the death penalty for anyone who works on the Sabbath, takes GOD's name in vain, and disobeys their parents.

2If "thou shalt not kill" is meant to be taken as against capital punishment, then why would GOD then institute capital punishment? Obviously there is more to it than what your English translation is revealing.

3There are at least 8 Hebrew words in the Old Testament that are translated as "kill." In the instance of Exodus 20:13, the Hebrew word used is "rasah" which specifically translates as "to murder" referring to premeditated murder.

4Clearly, you've never truly studied the Bible (and, no, a superficial reading of an English translation does not count as studying, you have to go back to the original languages), otherwise you would have known this.

1. Have you violated the commandments by working on a Sunday, taking God's name in vain or disobeying your parents? If so, then why should your life be spared when you want others to die? Don't tell me that you hold yourself to a different standard than the others.

2. Please if you would guide me to specific scripture where God instituted capital punishment. It would be nice to to see where God instituted it here in America too.

3. Yes, I read about that earlier tonight after my first replies were made today. If the 6th commandment means The commandment forbids the illegal and willful killing of the innocent, but does not ban capital punishment nor forbid the killing of Israel’s enemies during war.

is it murder then if you willfully kill a wrongly convicted person?

4. You are correct, I have never truly studied the Bible, but I am always open to learn. That is why I participate in these conversations. I had actually heard about the translation error of kill/murder before and in my haste, posted my response without taking it into consideration. Which Hebrew texts and texts in Aramaic etc. have you done your studying from? How did you make the translations?

J.B.
05-05-2009, 03:59 AM
I didn't want to get into religion in this thread, but since I wasn't the first to bring it up, I hope you don't mind me continuing along this path. To get this clear, are you stating that the Bible may have mistakes in it?

If the Bible is the true word of God, I should not be able to poke any holes in it. There are too many inaccuracies and inconsistencies in it for me to believe that it was divinely written. If there is at least one error, then I can't believe without question everything else that is written in it is the absolute truth.


You are obviously dead set in your way of being cynical and not looking to actually understand other people's opinion, but only to propagate your own.
If you cannot understand that the message being delivered by God is infallible, but the people who actually wrote it down and translated it are not, then you are incapable of having any sort of real discussion about the Bible. Having mistakes does not mean that the book is wrong, or a lie, it comes down to MAN'S INTERPRETATION of the dialogue. People in the 21st century communicate differently than they did 2000 years ago. Therefore, that is why certain parts of the book sometimes need to be explained by those who have actually studied the Bible, like a Priest.


Back to the death penalty and religion. Not knowing which religion you practice, my question to you is if you are in agreement with your denominations stance on the DP, and what their stance is. Here is a link of many denominations and their position in regard to the DP.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/religion-and-death-penalty

I have read the policies of 4 random Christian denominations in there, and all 4 have been against it. Why are so many of you closing your hearts to the goodness that Jesus preached? Do you think that the distribution of justice is equally applied to those that are poor, non-white or both in this country?

I am a non-denominational Christian, and you have admitted openly that you are NOT religious, so please do not question those of us who are on where we stand with God, you are out of line, again.

As for your link, did you notice that some of those denominations said exactly what we are saying? Did it ever occur to you that those cherry picked links don't represent what most Christians believe? You notice the only link they had for Islam don't even work. Gee whiz, I wonder if they execute people in the Middle East? :laugh:

Then of course, you come full circle with the snotty liberal foolishness about the death penalty being unfair to anybody who is not white. It always comes back to race, because for so long it's been the only thing keeping your side of the political spectrum afloat. If somebody is conservative, and they challenge you, call them a racist. As if racism knows a political boundry. :rolleyes:

Buzzard
05-05-2009, 04:58 AM
1. You are obviously dead set in your way of being cynical and not looking to actually understand other people's opinion, but only to propagate your own.

2. If you cannot understand that the message being delivered by God is infallible, but the people who actually wrote it down and translated it are not, then you are incapable of having any sort of real discussion about the Bible. Having mistakes does not mean that the book is wrong, or a lie, it comes down to MAN'S INTERPRETATION of the dialogue. People in the 21st century communicate differently than they did 2000 years ago. Therefore, that is why certain parts of the book sometimes need to be explained by those who have actually studied the Bible, like a Priest.




3. I am a non-denominational Christian, and you have admitted openly that you are NOT religious, so please do not question those of us who are on where we stand with God, you are out of line, again.

4. As for your link, did you notice that some of those denominations said exactly what we are saying? Did it ever occur to you that those cherry picked links don't represent what most Christians believe? You notice the only link they had for Islam don't even work. Gee whiz, I wonder if they execute people in the Middle East? :laugh:

5. Then of course, you come full circle with the snotty liberal foolishness about the death penalty being unfair to anybody who is not white. It always comes back to race, because for so long it's been the only thing keeping your side of the political spectrum afloat. If somebody is conservative, and they challenge you, call them a racist. As if racism knows a political boundry. :rolleyes:

1. Your opinion is wrong and actually applies more to you than to me. Your defense mechanism is kicking in and you are now letting your anger get the best of you.

2. You need to understand that not everybody, including myself believes that the Bible is Gods infallible message. I ask questions to possibly learn if it is true; you get angry and push those looking for answers away if they dare question something you state to be absolute truth.

3. Are you uncomfortable with me asking what denomination you are? You shouldn't be. Yes, I have said I am not religious. I put my cards on the table, and only asked that you do the same so I may gain insight. I ask so that I can how you came to your belief system and how it fits with the teachings you have learned from. It is not I who is out of line, it is your own self that doesn't like to have your beliefs questioned. This is a political thread with religion brought into it, if you are uncomfortable in this exchange, I understand if you wish to stop.

4. Did you even read what I wrote about the link? Obviously not or you would have seen that I told you that I picked 4 random denominations of Christianity and the four I picked were against the death penalty. Do you have any sources to show what most Christians believe? That's a pretty broad brush you paint with. If words straight from the horses mouth aren't good enough for you, I don't what will be. Are you saying that the source supplied and the words written there aren't what I said they were?

5. And here you go with the childish tantrum now. It works wonders when you can't back something up and resort to that. Show me evidence that what I questioned isn't or doesn't happen. I'll be more than happy to offer up ones that can support my claim. Do you know anything about my political stance, or are you just going to use sound bytes so you don't have to actually put any thought into what you say? Kindly show me where I have called anyone a racist if you can. I guess you again overlooked the part where I included the poor white man in my reply.

J.B.
05-05-2009, 06:06 AM
1. Your opinion is wrong and actually applies more to you than to me. Your defense mechanism is kicking in and you are now letting your anger get the best of you.

My defense mechanism, look at you, just like any typical keyboard psychiatrist. Believe me, I don't get angry at what I read and respond to on internet forums. I basically forget about it after I hit "submit reply" until the next time I surf back to the site. :laugh:


2. You need to understand that not everybody, including myself believes that the Bible is Gods infallible message. I ask questions to possibly learn if it is true; you get angry and push those looking for answers away if they dare question something you state to be absolute truth.

I never said that everybody believed that. You are asking the questions, I am giving you the answers. The Bible does indeed carry God's infallible message, if you want a different answer go and ask another human being who is not a Christian. If it's beyond your realm of comprehension to understand that Man is who wrote and translated the Bible, and that Man IS fallible, then I cannot help you. I am not angry about anything you are saying, but it's a pretty simple point to understand. The things that get misunderstood by common men is not a fault in the message, it's a fault in the messenger. You either get that or you don't.


3. Are you uncomfortable with me asking what denomination you are? You shouldn't be. Yes, I have said I am not religious. I put my cards on the table, and only asked that you do the same so I may gain insight. I ask so that I can how you came to your belief system and how it fits with the teachings you have learned from. It is not I who is out of line, it is your own self that doesn't like to have your beliefs questioned. This is a political thread with religion brought into it, if you are uncomfortable in this exchange, I understand if you wish to stop.

If I was uncomfortable, why did I answer the question straight up? With that you are just creating conflict out of thin-air.

Seriously, you are beyond confrontational to suggest that people who agree with capitol punishment are not opening themselves up to the teaching of Jesus when you admit you have no real knowledge of the Bible. That is just utter ignorance.

Don't sit there and act like you are Mr. Innocent, and only here to learn, you stir the pot at just about every chance you get in threads like this one when you already know what most of the people around this forums are going to think. If you are just here to learn then why did you attack Dave? Don't act like it did not happen just because it got deleted either.


4. Did you even read what I wrote about the link? Obviously not or you would have seen that I told you that I picked 4 random denominations of Christianity and the four I picked were against the death penalty. Do you have any sources to show what most Christians believe? That's a pretty broad brush you paint with. If words straight from the horses mouth aren't good enough for you, I don't what will be. Are you saying that the source supplied and the words written there aren't what I said they were?


Yes, I saw that you said 4 denominations, so what? The point is that site still cherry picked the links to correspond with it's own Anti-DP agenda. They stuck a couple in that agreed, okay, but even Hannity has liberals on his show. Sticking 2 or 3 in a list of 15 or 20 makes it look like it's the minority view amongst people of Christian faith.

It's not a stretch to assume that most Christians, especially in America, do agree with the death penalty. This is a predominantly Christian nation, you cannot argue that, and the death penalty is still widely accepted by most people of all faiths. Most states STILL have it, and have you bothered to look at the poll numbers up at the top? Wait, it MUST be ALL of us who are wrong and misinformed, not you, right?


5. And here you go with the childish tantrum now. It works wonders when you can't back something up and resort to that. Show me evidence that what I questioned isn't or doesn't happen. I'll be more than happy to offer up ones that can support my claim. Do you know anything about my political stance, or are you just going to use sound bytes so you don't have to actually put any thought into what you say? Kindly show me where I have called anyone a racist if you can. I guess you again overlooked the part where I included the poor white man in my reply.

You make it about class and race because it's a continuous liberal fascination. ATTACK THE MAN!!! Yeah dude, like rich whitey is totally keeping us down man... far out....yeah man, take their money and give it back to the poor people man, it's only fair...

Did you call anybody a racist? Not directly, but you didn't have to. Your argument stinks of the race card worse than Jesse Jackson's wallet. You want to apply the misuse of power by some to your argument and use it as reason to get rid of the power. That is nonsense. People have misused cars, knives, guns, and every other inanimate object in existence, better take all that away too. Do you want to talk about violent crime rates in high minority and high poverty areas? Because that is relevant to the discussion, and you cannot just overlook the crime because of the poverty. You can't call all gang shootings and bad drug deals a product of poverty. It's a product of social acceptance that has existed in those areas for far too long.

Buzzard
05-05-2009, 08:21 AM
My defense mechanism, look at you, just like any typical keyboard psychiatrist. Believe me, I don't get angry at what I read and respond to on internet forums. I basically forget about it after I hit "submit reply" until the next time I surf back to the site. :laugh:

Yes, your defense mechanism. It's quite easy for me to see.



I never said that everybody believed that. You are asking the questions, I am giving you the answers. The Bible does indeed carry God's infallible message, if you want a different answer go and ask another human being who is not a Christian. If it's beyond your realm of comprehension to understand that Man is who wrote and translated the Bible, and that Man IS fallible, then I cannot help you. I am not angry about anything you are saying, but it's a pretty simple point to understand. The things that get misunderstood by common men is not a fault in the message, it's a fault in the messenger. You either get that or you don't.

You stated it as fact. So what you are saying is that yes, the Bible has errors and discrepancies.


If I was uncomfortable, why did I answer the question straight up? With that you are just creating conflict out of thin-air.

I don't know. I just asked if you were and if so you shouldn't be.

Seriously, you are beyond confrontational to suggest that people who agree with capitol punishment are not opening themselves up to the teaching of Jesus when you admit you have no real knowledge of the Bible. That is just utter ignorance.

I don't see Jesus as a DP guy, you know the whole let he who is without sin cast the first stone thing when everyone walked away from a possible stoning of the lady, to paraphrase it poorly. While I have never studied the Bible, I have read it and am always open to learning. I do have real knowledge of the Bible, but not from a scholarly point nor to the extent of many here on this site. I can't recite chapter and verse either, but I can and do read it and learn more every time I do.

Don't sit there and act like you are Mr. Innocent, and only here to learn, you stir the pot at just about every chance you get in threads like this one when you already know what most of the people around this forums are going to think. If you are just here to learn then why did you attack Dave? Don't act like it did not happen just because it got deleted either.

I have yet to bring religion into the politics forum, but will discuss issues pertaining to religion when brought up by someone else. I am not a mind reader, that is why I ask questions. Was my interpretation of the 6th commandment wrong? I didn't attack Dave, I jabbed him a bit in the context of the 6th commandment. I know it happened and won't deny it either. If Dave wishes to know what my reply was, he can message me.


Yes, I saw that you said 4 denominations, so what? The point is that site still cherry picked the links to correspond with it's own Anti-DP agenda. They stuck a couple in that agreed, okay, but even Hannity has liberals on his show. Sticking 2 or 3 in a list of 15 or 20 makes it look like it's the minority view amongst people of Christian faith.

Go find some links to churches that say they are pro DP and fill me in. You just seem miffed that these Christian churches don't share your acceptance of the DP. If you read all of the standings of the churches, how many were pro DP and how many anti DP?

It's not a stretch to assume that most Christians, especially in America, do agree with the death penalty. This is a predominantly Christian nation, you cannot argue that, and the death penalty is still widely accepted by most people of all faiths. Most states STILL have it, and have you bothered to look at the poll numbers up at the top? Wait, it MUST be ALL of us who are wrong and misinformed, not you, right?

It is somewhat strange that all of these Christians don't seem to mind the taking of a life knowing full well that there is the possibility that an innocent could be wrongfully executed. I'd really like to see how you come to the conclusion that the DP is widely accepted by most people of all faiths. Nice broad paintbrush you are using again. As for the poll, I believe that the one Christian who is against it is someone that does follow the spirit of Jesus.

You are entitled to you opinions and they are what they are, neither right nor wrong. It just surprises me that those pro DP folks are ok with it.



You make it about class and race because it's a continuous liberal fascination. ATTACK THE MAN!!! Yeah dude, like rich whitey is totally keeping us down man... far out....yeah man, take their money and give it back to the poor people man, it's only fair...

This nonsense doesn't deserve a reply.

Did you call anybody a racist? Not directly, but you didn't have to. Your argument stinks of the race card worse than Jesse Jackson's wallet. You want to apply the misuse of power by some to your argument and use it as reason to get rid of the power. That is nonsense. People have misused cars, knives, guns, and every other inanimate object in existence, better take all that away too. Do you want to talk about violent crime rates in high minority and high poverty areas? Because that is relevant to the discussion, and you cannot just overlook the crime because of the poverty. You can't call all gang shootings and bad drug deals a product of poverty. It's a product of social acceptance that has existed in those areas for far too long.

Who then did I indirectly call a racist? Where and what power do you say I am try to get rid of? Nonsense is how you think you can read my mind.

Have a good night, it is too late for me now.

J.B.
05-05-2009, 10:09 AM
My defense mechanism, look at you, just like any typical keyboard psychiatrist. Believe me, I don't get angry at what I read and respond to on internet forums. I basically forget about it after I hit "submit reply" until the next time I surf back to the site.

Yes, your defense mechanism. It's quite easy for me to see.



I never said that everybody believed that. You are asking the questions, I am giving you the answers. The Bible does indeed carry God's infallible message, if you want a different answer go and ask another human being who is not a Christian. If it's beyond your realm of comprehension to understand that Man is who wrote and translated the Bible, and that Man IS fallible, then I cannot help you. I am not angry about anything you are saying, but it's a pretty simple point to understand. The things that get misunderstood by common men is not a fault in the message, it's a fault in the messenger. You either get that or you don't.

You stated it as fact. So what you are saying is that yes, the Bible has errors and discrepancies.


If I was uncomfortable, why did I answer the question straight up? With that you are just creating conflict out of thin-air.

I don't know. I just asked if you were and if so you shouldn't be.

Seriously, you are beyond confrontational to suggest that people who agree with capitol punishment are not opening themselves up to the teaching of Jesus when you admit you have no real knowledge of the Bible. That is just utter ignorance.

I don't see Jesus as a DP guy, you know the whole let he who is without sin cast the first stone thing when everyone walked away from a possible stoning of the lady, to paraphrase it poorly. While I have never studied the Bible, I have read it and am always open to learning. I do have real knowledge of the Bible, but not from a scholarly point nor to the extent of many here on this site. I can't recite chapter and verse either, but I can and do read it and learn more every time I do.

Don't sit there and act like you are Mr. Innocent, and only here to learn, you stir the pot at just about every chance you get in threads like this one when you already know what most of the people around this forums are going to think. If you are just here to learn then why did you attack Dave? Don't act like it did not happen just because it got deleted either.

I have yet to bring religion into the politics forum, but will discuss issues pertaining to religion when brought up by someone else. I am not a mind reader, that is why I ask questions. Was my interpretation of the 6th commandment wrong? I didn't attack Dave, I jabbed him a bit in the context of the 6th commandment. I know it happened and won't deny it either. If Dave wishes to know what my reply was, he can message me.


Yes, I saw that you said 4 denominations, so what? The point is that site still cherry picked the links to correspond with it's own Anti-DP agenda. They stuck a couple in that agreed, okay, but even Hannity has liberals on his show. Sticking 2 or 3 in a list of 15 or 20 makes it look like it's the minority view amongst people of Christian faith.


Go find some links to churches that say they are pro DP and fill me in. You just seem miffed that these Christian churches don't share your acceptance of the DP. If you read all of the standings of the churches, how many were pro DP and how many anti DP?

It's not a stretch to assume that most Christians, especially in America, do agree with the death penalty. This is a predominantly Christian nation, you cannot argue that, and the death penalty is still widely accepted by most people of all faiths. Most states STILL have it, and have you bothered to look at the poll numbers up at the top? Wait, it MUST be ALL of us who are wrong and misinformed, not you, right?

It is somewhat strange that all of these Christians don't seem to mind the taking of a life knowing full well that there is the possibility that an innocent could be wrongfully executed. I'd really like to see how you come to the conclusion that the DP is widely accepted by most people of all faiths. Nice broad paintbrush you are using again. As for the poll, I believe that the one Christian who is against it is someone that does follow the spirit of Jesus.

You are entitled to you opinions and they are what they are, neither right nor wrong. It just surprises me that those pro DP folks are ok with it.



You make it about class and race because it's a continuous liberal fascination. ATTACK THE MAN!!! Yeah dude, like rich whitey is totally keeping us down man... far out....yeah man, take their money and give it back to the poor people man, it's only fair...


This nonsense doesn't deserve a reply.

Did you call anybody a racist? Not directly, but you didn't have to. Your argument stinks of the race card worse than Jesse Jackson's wallet. You want to apply the misuse of power by some to your argument and use it as reason to get rid of the power. That is nonsense. People have misused cars, knives, guns, and every other inanimate object in existence, better take all that away too. Do you want to talk about violent crime rates in high minority and high poverty areas? Because that is relevant to the discussion, and you cannot just overlook the crime because of the poverty. You can't call all gang shootings and bad drug deals a product of poverty. It's a product of social acceptance that has existed in those areas for far too long.


Who then did I indirectly call a racist? Where and what power do you say I am try to get rid of? Nonsense is how you think you can read my mind.

1. You seem to think I give a crap what you think about me or my beliefs, when I truly don't. I don't mind a lively discussion, and I am not close-minded to other peoples views, but I don't have to agree with them, and I don't have to kiss your butt and tell you I think it's okay for "you to have your view" when I think it's completely wrong. Especially when you are talking about matters of Christianity and you come right out and admit you know next to nothing about the Bible and you are a non-believer. If your intentions are truly just to ask questions to learn more about the views of Christians, then you would be better served to not come off as trying to take shots at those who do believe, and you certainly have no place questioning the faith of anybody who happens to disagree with your narrow understanding of Christianity. I am not angry at you, but I don't agree with your view, or the manner in which you are delivering your message.

2. Just because the various translations and interpretations can sometimes be misunderstood by the common man, it does not make the message fallible. My point here has been explained thoroughly. You get it or you don't, but I am not concerned with if you agree or disagree with it at this time.

3. I am totally comfortable telling you I am a non-denominational Christian. Most of the Churches I have attended have been Lutheran, but my family never really followed a specific denomination.

4. Yes, Jesus did say "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", but the rest of the chapter also needs to be put into context. I am not a Biblical scholar by any means, but my take on John 8 is that Jesus was proclaiming himself to be the son of the one true God as he was being challenged by the scribes and pharisees. The woman cheated on her husband, she was not a child rapist or a serial killer. When he said "neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more", he was basically telling her that if she believes in him and does not sin that her soul would not be condemned and she would be fogiven by God. Jesus still did not approve of her sin, but he knew that judgment that the Jews were passing on her was not a righteous one, but rather that of test on Jesus himself. If you back up to John 7:24, Jesus says "Judge not according to appearance, but judge a righteous judgment". Worldly judgments and divine judgments are two different things, but God's message is also clear that law and order is to be upheld, and we are to follow all the laws of the land as long as they do not violate the laws of God. Capital punishment is not something I like to think we need, but the hard reality is we do need it, and in every modern case that I am aware of where the death penalty has been applied it was a fair judgment. In America, there are no proven cases of any innocent people being executed by the death penalty in modern times that I am aware of. If you know of one, please enlighten me.

5. You can call it a jab, but it was totally uncalled for. Going back to John 7:24, it's not a very righteous judgment for you say those things about him based on looking at a picture. If it was as mild as you claim, why did a mod magically erase the post and the two other posts responding to it? Like I said before, I don't get worked up about forum disputes, I say my piece, make my points and move on. However, from time to time there are things that people say that I feel are just out of line, and I will definitely call them on it.

6. No, I did not read every denominations standing in their entirety, but I did glance over each one. There were only a couple that clearly supported the death penalty. I am not "miffed" by anybody who does not support it, and I clearly understand their reasoning, I just don't agree with it. I am not alone in that belief, and many of the people who share that same belief are also Christian, and they are not any less Christian for believing that. Still, a point which you have ignored is that the website you keep referring to is obviously one-sided on the subject. Am I going to post links to denominations who agree with the DP? No, I am not because I am non-denominational and I don't really care. If you are that interested look it up.

7. My broad brush is painting in full color and high definition, it's clearer than a Mitsubishi big screen. If you don't think that most people in this world agree with executing child rapists and serial killers then you are delusional. Could an innocent man be executed? Yes. Does that mean that the death penalty itself is wrong? No. Does the man who is Christian yet opposes the DP follow the spirit of Jesus? Yes, he does, but does a Christian man who agrees with it not follow that same spirit as well? Yes he does.

8. It may be nonsense, but it's how I am perceiving your arguments because that is what it reminds me of. If that is not you, okay cool, but that's what it came off like to me.

9. I don't attempt to read your mind, I go right off of what you say. You raised a point that suggested the death penalty is unfairly applied to poor people and minorities. That is a debating tactic known as pulling the race card. The issue of poverty and race has no place in a debate about the legality and morality of the death penalty. Yet you felt compelled to bring it up to try and add substance to your argument. The point again is that if a judge or prosecutor unfairly or unjustly gives the death penalty to somebody, it is not the fault of the penalty itself. It is the fault of the person who abuses their power, and they would have to answer to law of the land and eventually judgment from God. See the point?

Tyburn
05-05-2009, 12:23 PM
Did I say that my two bibles are written in Hebrew and that I read them in that language? No I didn't, so try again.

Being that the Bible needed to be translated, how can you be sure that the rest of it is correctly translated? Do you read Hebrew and have you done your own translation from the original manuscripts?
I know the Bible doesnt contridict itself. Therefore, if GOD orders State Excution and Wars...he cant be viewing them as breaking the commandments...thats simple logic :)

Tyburn
05-05-2009, 12:26 PM
I didn't want to get into religion in this thread, but


Yes you did.

We've already determined your not here to learn.:ninja:

Crisco
05-05-2009, 01:50 PM
I'd also like to add that just because some Christian denominations are against the death penalty doesn't mean that God is.

The bible clearly offers the death penalty and that is what matters not the opinions of some Christian denominations.

VCURamFan
05-05-2009, 03:02 PM
That site Buzzard posted is total horsecrap! :laugh:

Seriously, the only conservative, reformed, evangelical Christian denomination on there is the Southern Baptists! No wonder it was easy to find four of them that didn't like the death penalty!

Spiritwalker
05-05-2009, 03:36 PM
Well.. ust my .02 on the way this thread has turned...

Wonder what's in the books of the bible that were removed.

Neezar
05-05-2009, 03:39 PM
We'll just make it up as we go along. :w00t:


:rolleyes: :laugh:

gymcoach97
05-05-2009, 03:40 PM
Personally, I am against it until the system is fixed.

Somehow, the U.S. needs to better categorize murder. Let me give you an example...

A child molester who kidnaps, rapes, and murders a little kid deserves the ultimate penalty.

However, let's pretend some guy comes home, catches his wife in bed with another man, grabs his gun, and shoots the guy. Is this guy a vicious, brutal killer or just someone that "lost it" and committed a crime of passion? Does he truly deserve to die? I don't think so. I don't think he's truly a menace to society - the guy probably would have never killed in his lifetime except this one instant set him off and he lost control.

I have seen cases like this...where a child molester/serial murderer gets a plea deal and the guy who commits a crime of passion and more or less goes temporarily insane gets the death penalty.

At the other end of the spectrum, the law officials must be damn sure that they have the right person. I'd contend that if DNA evidence is not available or it's clearly obvious (key witnesses, etc.), then the death penalty should not be an option.

So, if we fix the system, I'm for it. But, until then, I'm against it because there are some serious flaws - largely because it is state-regulated as opposed to being regulated by the federal government. I think that the federal government needs to set some specific guidelines for all states to abide by. Now, I have no problem with states making their own decision as to whether or not to impose the death penalty. But, if they are going to use it, then there needs to be universal standards and regulations. Right now, there are not and that's a problem in my opinion.

Miss Foxy
05-05-2009, 03:43 PM
Personally, I am against it until the system is fixed.

Somehow, the U.S. needs to better categorize murder. Let me give you an example...

A child molester who kidnaps, rapes, and murders a little kid deserves the ultimate penalty.

However, let's pretend some guy comes home, catches his wife in bed with another man, grabs his gun, and shoots the guy. Is this guy a vicious, brutal killer or just someone that "lost it" and committed a crime of passion? Does he truly deserve to die? I don't think so. I don't think he's truly a menace to society - the guy probably would have never killed in his lifetime except this one instant set him off and he lost control.
I have seen cases like this...where a child molester/serial murderer gets a plea deal and the guy who commits a crime of passion and more or less goes temporarily insane gets the death penalty.

At the other end of the spectrum, the law officials must be damn sure that they have the right person. I'd contend that if DNA evidence is not available or it's clearly obvious (key witnesses, etc.), then the death penalty should not be an option.

So, if we fix the system, I'm for it. But, until then, I'm against it because there are some serious flaws - largely because it is state-regulated as opposed to being regulated by the federal government. I think that the federal government needs to set some specific guidelines for all states to abide by. Now, I have no problem with states making their own decision as to whether or not to impose the death penalty. But, if they are going to use it, then there needs to be universal standards and regulations. Right now, there are not and that's a problem in my opinion.
So a man or woman who has an infant and gets irritated with a crying baby is set off and shakes or harms the baby in which the child dies doesnt deserve to die? Im sorry I beg to differ thats why one must have control at all times and for every action= reaction. I feel you on a case like Con-Air where he was clearly defending himself, but I guess each case is different..

Neezar
05-05-2009, 03:44 PM
Personally, I am against it until the system is fixed.

Somehow, the U.S. needs to better categorize murder. Let me give you an example...

A child molester who kidnaps, rapes, and murders a little kid deserves the ultimate penalty.

However, let's pretend some guy comes home, catches his wife in bed with another man, grabs his gun, and shoots the guy. Is this guy a vicious, brutal killer or just someone that "lost it" and committed a crime of passion? Does he truly deserve to die? I don't think so. I don't think he's truly a menace to society - the guy probably would have never killed in his lifetime except this one instant set him off and he lost control.

I have seen cases like this...where a child molester/serial murderer gets a plea deal and the guy who commits a crime of passion and more or less goes temporarily insane gets the death penalty.


Do you have any examples of this? In most cases, the death penalty is not an option of punishment for murder alone. There has to be extinuating circumstances to make it capital murder.

Spiritwalker
05-05-2009, 03:51 PM
Personally, I am against it until the system is fixed.

Somehow, the U.S. needs to better categorize murder. Let me give you an example...

A child molester or someone who kidnaps or rapes, or murders a little kid deserves the ultimate penalty.



Fixed. At least in my eyes... that is correct.

Crisco
05-05-2009, 03:53 PM
Well.. ust my .02 on the way this thread has turned...

Wonder what's in the books of the bible that were removed.

If you needed to know God would have put them there :)


On a side note you have to define removed. I don't think any book was ever put into the bible and then discarded after a time.

Crisco
05-05-2009, 03:56 PM
Fixed. At least in my eyes... that is correct.

I agree with that but in the extreme cases.

If a girl gets drunk and screws a guy in the car and then cries rape dude should not die. But if he beats her to bloody pulp and then rapes her there is no doubt in my mind he should be executed.

Molesters should be hung by their toes and beaten to death with metal rods.

Miss Foxy
05-05-2009, 03:58 PM
I agree with that but in the extreme cases.

If a girl gets drunk and screws a guy in the car and then cries rape dude should not die. But if he beats her to bloody pulp and then rapes her there is no doubt in my mind he should be executed.

Molesters should be hung by their toes and beaten to death with metal rods.
Yup!!! While people are carrying on about giving these monsters freedoms and second chances do they care about the victims? Do they think what happened to the poor child who was impacted by such a disgusting act? No they don't! :angry:

Crisco
05-05-2009, 04:01 PM
Yup!!! While people are carrying on about giving these monsters freedoms and second chances do they care about the victims? Do they think what happened to the poor child who was impacted by such a disgusting act? No they don't! :angry:

There is no going back.

You molest a child you are forever a child molester.

There are no second chances from that. If we start executing people for this crime maybe we will start seeing this perverts think twice.

VCURamFan
05-05-2009, 04:14 PM
Personally, I am against it until the system is fixed.

Somehow, the U.S. needs to better categorize murder. Let me give you an example...

A child molester who kidnaps, rapes, and murders a little kid deserves the ultimate penalty.

However, let's pretend some guy comes home, catches his wife in bed with another man, grabs his gun, and shoots the guy. Is this guy a vicious, brutal killer or just someone that "lost it" and committed a crime of passion? Does he truly deserve to die? I don't think so. I don't think he's truly a menace to society - the guy probably would have never killed in his lifetime except this one instant set him off and he lost control.

I have seen cases like this...where a child molester/serial murderer gets a plea deal and the guy who commits a crime of passion and more or less goes temporarily insane gets the death penalty.

At the other end of the spectrum, the law officials must be damn sure that they have the right person. I'd contend that if DNA evidence is not available or it's clearly obvious (key witnesses, etc.), then the death penalty should not be an option.

So, if we fix the system, I'm for it. But, until then, I'm against it because there are some serious flaws - largely because it is state-regulated as opposed to being regulated by the federal government. I think that the federal government needs to set some specific guidelines for all states to abide by. Now, I have no problem with states making their own decision as to whether or not to impose the death penalty. But, if they are going to use it, then there needs to be universal standards and regulations. Right now, there are not and that's a problem in my opinion.Haha, you're 33 years behind schedule, buddy!

The Supreme Court case of Furman v. Georgia (1974) said exactly this: that the manner in the death penalty was being applied was unconstitutional. They believed it was being applied arbitrarily at best & racially at worst. Abolitionists rejoiced, believing that society had "evolved" to the point where captial punishment was obsolete.

However, there was a public outcry & the states immediately re-worked their statutes to comply with the Supreme Court's complaints. 2 years later, in Gregg v. Georgia, the State of Georgia had sentenced Gregg to death. He appealed this to the Supreme Court, assuming it would be overturned, but that didn't happen. You see, by that time, the laws ahd been re-written to define only a very narrow number of cases in which the death penalty was available. Also, if a man was convicted of one of those crimes, he would then be put through a second trial in order to determine whether or not he would recieve the death penalty (it's referred to as a bifurcated trial).

Just to be clear: you can't get the death penalty for:

negligent manslaughter
corporate manslaughter
reckless manslaughter
vehicluar manslaughter
involuntary manslaughter
voluntary manslaughter
class 2 felony murder
class 1 felony murderYou can only recieve Capital Punishment in cases where you've been convicted of Capital Murder, which is defined as follows:
the unlawful killing of another human being with intent or malice aforethought.Even in capital murder cases, it's very rare to recieve the death penalty, becuase in the second half of the bifurcated trial, there are extremely stringent requirements placed on the courts that must be met.

So don't let the propaganda fool you, the system is extremely reliable. The judge doesn't just flip a coin & guess.

Tyburn
05-05-2009, 04:42 PM
Well.. ust my .02 on the way this thread has turned...

Wonder what's in the books of the bible that were removed.
No books were ever removed. I assume you mean before the Canon was created, when there were litterally trillions of books across Christondom.


Those books are refered to as apokraphal texts...they range from Not Bad...to absolute Lord of The Rings style stuff.

The Apokraphal texts tend to outline the work of Angelic Host, they tend to also be psedo-prophetic in style. There are about ten Apokraphal Texts that are mainly Historical volumes of happenings between the Two Testaments, that the Roman Catholics think are so good people really should read them even if they arent strictly speaking in the Canon, So a Roman Bible has a third section entitled "Apokrapha" with a few of the best...Macabees being one, I think Sirach is another

My personal Favourite Apokraphal Text is The Book of Enoch. He writes a great deal about Nephilim, that is the offspring of a union between Host and Human. It happened before the Flood, it also happened at least once big style, after the flood.

the most famous Nephilim in the Bible is probably Goliath (as in the one that King David killed) the give away is the description of him as a "Giant" Nephilim were known for being abnormally large and abnormally violent I think.

gymcoach97
05-05-2009, 05:20 PM
Haha, you're 33 years behind schedule, buddy!

The Supreme Court case of Furman v. Georgia (1974) said exactly this: that the manner in the death penalty was being applied was unconstitutional. They believed it was being applied arbitrarily at best & racially at worst. Abolitionists rejoiced, believing that society had "evolved" to the point where captial punishment was obsolete.

However, there was a public outcry & the states immediately re-worked their statutes to comply with the Supreme Court's complaints. 2 years later, in Gregg v. Georgia, the State of Georgia had sentenced Gregg to death. He appealed this to the Supreme Court, assuming it would be overturned, but that didn't happen. You see, by that time, the laws ahd been re-written to define only a very narrow number of cases in which the death penalty was available. Also, if a man was convicted of one of those crimes, he would then be put through a second trial in order to determine whether or not he would recieve the death penalty (it's referred to as a bifurcated trial).

Just to be clear: you can't get the death penalty for:

negligent manslaughter
corporate manslaughter
reckless manslaughter
vehicluar manslaughter
involuntary manslaughter
voluntary manslaughter
class 2 felony murder
class 1 felony murderYou can only recieve Capital Punishment in cases where you've been convicted of Capital Murder, which is defined as follows:
Even in capital murder cases, it's very rare to recieve the death penalty, becuase in the second half of the bifurcated trial, there are extremely stringent requirements placed on the courts that must be met.

So don't let the propaganda fool you, the system is extremely reliable. The judge doesn't just flip a coin & guess.


It's not as cut and dry as you seem to make it...

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty

Since 1973, 131 people have been exonerated. What if those 131 folks would have been unjustly executed? What price do you put on someone's life?

The system has problems that need to be solved. Until they are solved, some stronger legislation must be created to prevent these atrocities.

I have no problem with the death penalty if the system worked better. Unfortunately, it has some serious problems and it's very easy to cast stones, but put yourself into some of these folks' position. What if you (VCURamFan or anyone else) were screwed over in court and put on death row for something that you did not do.

I bet that the very members of this forum who know you would cause a major uproar and change their tune entirely.

Crisco
05-05-2009, 05:31 PM
It's not as cut and dry as you seem to make it...

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty

Since 1973, 131 people have been exonerated. What if those 131 folks would have been unjustly executed? What price do you put on someone's life?

The system has problems that need to be solved. Until they are solved, some stronger legislation must be created to prevent these atrocities.

I have no problem with the death penalty if the system worked better. Unfortunately, it has some serious problems and it's very easy to cast stones, but put yourself into some of these folks' position. What if you (VCURamFan or anyone else) were screwed over in court and put on death row for something that you did not do.

I bet that the very members of this forum who know you would cause a major uproar and change their tune entirely.

How many people suffer in jail for life that are innocent?

Max
05-05-2009, 05:51 PM
No books were ever removed. I assume you mean before the Canon was created, when there were litterally trillions of books across Christondom.


Those books are refered to as apokraphal texts...they range from Not Bad...to absolute Lord of The Rings style stuff.

The Apokraphal texts tend to outline the work of Angelic Host, they tend to also be psedo-prophetic in style. There are about ten Apokraphal Texts that are mainly Historical volumes of happenings between the Two Testaments, that the Roman Catholics think are so good people really should read them even if they arent strictly speaking in the Canon, So a Roman Bible has a third section entitled "Apokrapha" with a few of the best...Macabees being one, I think Sirach is another

My personal Favourite Apokraphal Text is The Book of Enoch. He writes a great deal about Nephilim, that is the offspring of a union between Host and Human. It happened before the Flood, it also happened at least once big style, after the flood.

the most famous Nephilim in the Bible is probably Goliath (as in the one that King David killed) the give away is the description of him as a "Giant" Nephilim were known for being abnormally large and abnormally violent I think.
More info about the extra books Dave is talking about. This is pulled of a website I found, I did not write it.

What is the Difference Between Protestant and Catholic Bibles?

The Old Testament

The First Christian Bible
At the time the Christian Bible was being formed, a Greek translation of Jewish Scripture, the Septuagint, was in common use and Christians adopted it as the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. However, around 100 A.D., Jewish rabbis revised their Scripture and established an official canon of Judaism which excluded some portions of the Greek Septuagint. The material excluded was a group of 15 late Jewish books, written during the period 170 B.C. to 70 A.D., that were not found in Hebrew versions of the Jewish Scripture. Christians did not follow the revisions of Judaism and continued to use the text of the Septuagint as the Old Testament.

Protestant Bibles
In the 1500s, Protestant leaders decided to organize the Old Testament material according to the official canon of Judaism rather than the Septuagint. They moved the Old Testament material which was not in the Jewish canon into a separate section of the Bible called the Apocrypha. So, Protestant Bibles then included all the same material as the earlier Bible, but it was divided into two sections: the Old Testament and the Apocrypha. Protestant Bibles included the Apocrypha until the mid 1800s, and the King James Version was originally published with the Apocrypha. However, the books of the Apocrypha were considered less important, and the Apocrypha was eventually dropped from most Protestant editions.

Catholic and Orthodox Bibles
The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches did not follow the Protestant revisions, and they continue to base their Old Testament on the Septuagint. The result is that these versions of the the Bible have more Old Testament books than most Protestant versions. Catholic Old Testaments include 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), additions to Esther, and the stories of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon which are included in Daniel. Orthodox Old Testaments include these plus 1st and 2nd Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151 and 3rd Maccabees.


The New Testament

The Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox New Testaments are identical.

VCURamFan
05-05-2009, 06:15 PM
It's not as cut and dry as you seem to make it...

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty

Since 1973, 131 people have been exonerated. What if those 131 folks would have been unjustly executed? What price do you put on someone's life?

The system has problems that need to be solved. Until they are solved, some stronger legislation must be created to prevent these atrocities.

I have no problem with the death penalty if the system worked better. Unfortunately, it has some serious problems and it's very easy to cast stones, but put yourself into some of these folks' position. What if you (VCURamFan or anyone else) were screwed over in court and put on death row for something that you did not do.

I bet that the very members of this forum who know you would cause a major uproar and change their tune entirely.Yes, but those 131 were exonerated by DNA evidence, correct? The modern death penalty cannot be applied without DNA evidence. Again, I understand that the system was FUBARed, but it's constantly being revised in order to keep up with the technology.

Tyburn
05-05-2009, 06:23 PM
More info about the extra books Dave is talking about. This is pulled of a website I found, I did not write it.

What is the Difference Between Protestant and Catholic Bibles?

The Old Testament

The First Christian Bible
At the time the Christian Bible was being formed, a Greek translation of Jewish Scripture, the Septuagint, was in common use and Christians adopted it as the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. However, around 100 A.D., Jewish rabbis revised their Scripture and established an official canon of Judaism which excluded some portions of the Greek Septuagint. The material excluded was a group of 15 late Jewish books, written during the period 170 B.C. to 70 A.D., that were not found in Hebrew versions of the Jewish Scripture. Christians did not follow the revisions of Judaism and continued to use the text of the Septuagint as the Old Testament.

Protestant Bibles
In the 1500s, Protestant leaders decided to organize the Old Testament material according to the official canon of Judaism rather than the Septuagint. They moved the Old Testament material which was not in the Jewish canon into a separate section of the Bible called the Apocrypha. So, Protestant Bibles then included all the same material as the earlier Bible, but it was divided into two sections: the Old Testament and the Apocrypha. Protestant Bibles included the Apocrypha until the mid 1800s, and the King James Version was originally published with the Apocrypha. However, the books of the Apocrypha were considered less important, and the Apocrypha was eventually dropped from most Protestant editions.

Catholic and Orthodox Bibles
The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches did not follow the Protestant revisions, and they continue to base their Old Testament on the Septuagint. The result is that these versions of the the Bible have more Old Testament books than most Protestant versions. Catholic Old Testaments include 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), additions to Esther, and the stories of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon which are included in Daniel. Orthodox Old Testaments include these plus 1st and 2nd Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151 and 3rd Maccabees.


The New Testament

The Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox New Testaments are identical.

Really...so the Roman Catholics claim the Apokrapha to be Scripture because its Original Jewish Old Testament.
I guess that works

But thats not the same as the other books that the Catholics dont include which are also called Apokraphal Books...there are millions of them, the Gospels according to every man and his dog, and several books from old testament greats...presumably that explains how some of the apokrapha got into the Roman Catholic bible...and some apokrapha did not.

Confusing that they are both called Apokrapha isnt it :blink:

Spiritwalker
05-05-2009, 07:01 PM
No books were ever removed. I assume you mean before the Canon was created, when there were litterally trillions of books across Christondom.



OK, so who decided what was in what we now know as the Bible, and what was out?

J.B.
05-05-2009, 08:16 PM
It's not as cut and dry as you seem to make it...

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty

Since 1973, 131 people have been exonerated. What if those 131 folks would have been unjustly executed? What price do you put on someone's life?

The system has problems that need to be solved. Until they are solved, some stronger legislation must be created to prevent these atrocities.

I have no problem with the death penalty if the system worked better. Unfortunately, it has some serious problems and it's very easy to cast stones, but put yourself into some of these folks' position. What if you (VCURamFan or anyone else) were screwed over in court and put on death row for something that you did not do.

I bet that the very members of this forum who know you would cause a major uproar and change their tune entirely.

Why does everyone refer back to the same exact website?

Anyway, why did those 131 people even have a chance to be exonerated? Because of the way our system works. In some other countries, you die almost right after you get sentenced, like Saddam did.

The whole "what if it was you" argument is a loaded point. Of course nobody wants to be wrongfully convicted, and most people don't want it to happen to anybody, but I cannot stress enough that just because there is potential for a mistake it does not make the penalty itself unjust. In that case, the problem is the people, not the penalty. If I turned that question around and said, what if this guy raped and murdered your child? Would you want to see him die? It's not fair to personalize a general topic in that way.

Tyburn
05-05-2009, 09:13 PM
OK, so who decided what was in what we now know as the Bible, and what was out?
Well, the True Bible is the Old Testament. It was canonized by the Jewish Faith, after Five Rivisions (the last of which is the cause of the Apokrapha in the Roman, where the Jews revised their old Testament and knocked out a few books the Romans decided to keep)

Before the Roman Reform under Constentine, there were thousands of "scriptures" that wouldnt have been though of as Scriptures, but as inspired writings, by the Early Church. Unfortunately, many of them were...a little odd. There was no set New Testament...just a bundle of letters and books passed around the early Church. Even Saint Paul in his later writings (and remember he'd been dead two centuries by the time of Constentine) was begining to see that different parts of the church believed slightly different things.

I dont believe for a second that Constentine was a Christian. I believe that he was trying to unite an ailing Empire by putting it back under ONE religious belief...and there in lay the Problem...just what EXACTLY did the Christians believe that distinguished them from Jews?

The Council of Nicea...which was the Early Churches last Stand Free of Rome, was called by the Emporar...where all the Bishops would meet and give him a full statement on what they believed...well you had bloody everything from Jew, to Gnostic...and they all had to try and come to aggreement over which documents floating around the Church actually was the core of their believif POST Jew.

When the Council couldnt decide a certain thing, the Emporar, after viewing all the facts would decree what was true and what was not. Thats why you have Churches that still dissagree about the Date for the Feast of the Ressurection.

This Council kinda digressed from its Scripture to be a purely theological debate. This was the foundations of the Doctrine and Tradition, and liturgy and ceremonial...rather then Scriptures.

Meanwhile, as the Empire began to split. Constantine made a mad dash to the Constantinople. A new Rome in the East...and he asked a Bishop called "Euisebus" to prepare some Scripture he could hand out to all his new Churches. :laugh: Euisebus put together a bundle of Inspired Oracles, that had been aggreed upon by Most of Nicea...and it was those Oracles that became the basis for the work done by Saint Jerome. Jerome took these Oracles (manuscripts known as Codex) and he translated the Greek and Hebrew and other stuff into Latin

The Old Vulgate was born, and Revised into better Latin to creat The Vulgate. The basis of the Bible you see today.

The later revisions...are more like Editions of the Bible...they are faffing around with translations, and different words...but they dont omit Books...except for the fact the Protestant Church keep with the Final Jewish Revision of the Old Testament, where as the Roman Catholic do not, evidently, recognise the validity of that final Jewish Revision.

Many of the books which Nicea did not aggree to, are still around. The Gospel According to Saint Thomas, was made famous in the film Stigmata. The Book of Enoch is fantastic....The Coptic Church and Armenian Church do include An extra Book...goodness only knows how or why...but they do. Nothing more then a few pages of stuff though...the extra verse here and there...you know how it is.

Various different Churches split so badly with Rome they became Denominations. MANY Gnostic Sects refused to use the Nicea Compiliation...and they have thus got a heretical christian bible...I reckon their cults died out though...The Orthodox Church fell out with Rome over tradition and dogma...which the Church Fathers kept adding to after Nicea, the theologians of the Roman Church, you know, Saint augustine etc...The Protestant Church just detested the authority of the Roman Church...Rome kinda got out of control and finally a good proportion of Christendom told her to STFU....and we've never been the same sinse :laugh:

Jonlion
05-05-2009, 10:24 PM
Look what happened In The Life of David Gale.............................................. .................................................. .........................







Great film by the way

Buzzard
05-06-2009, 12:35 AM
Why does everyone refer back to the same exact website? Could it be that it has the information there? If you don't like the site, find another. Are you saying that the information on this site in false?

Anyway, why did those 131 people even have a chance to be exonerated? Because of the way our system works. In some other countries, you die almost right after you get sentenced, like Saddam did.

The whole "what if it was you" argument is a loaded point. Of course nobody wants to be wrongfully convicted, and most people don't want it to happen to anybody, but I cannot stress enough that just because there is potential for a mistake it does not make the penalty itself unjust. In that case, the problem is the people, not the penalty. If I turned that question around and said, what if this guy raped and murdered your child? Would you want to see him die? It's not fair to personalize a general topic in that way.

I can't answer your question because I have no children, though if something like that happened to a family member, I still would not want the death penalty. There have been many people who have lived through a situation like that and don't wish for the death penalty to be applied. It has been in the news and should be easy enough for you to find specific examples if you wish to find them.

I know you don't like the site I am linking you to, but here are a few people who were executed and were possibly innocent.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent

How nice of us to fit in the rankings of these countries.

Most Executions carried out in 2007
Country Number Executions per million people in country
China 470+ (other sources est. 5,000)1 0.36+ (other sources est. 3.78)1
Iran 317+ 4.50+
Saudi Arabia 143+ 5.18+
Pakistan 135+ 0.78+
USA 42 0.14
Iraq 33+ 1.13+
1.Based on a combination of published and anecdotal evidence, Dui Hua foundation suggests the real tally in China may be as high as 5,000 (3.78 per million people)[31]

From this wiki source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment

Here is more information. If you read the information, you will find that the courts do not change the verdict on and innocent person who was wrongly executed.

http://www.justicedenied.org/executed.htm

Buzzard
05-06-2009, 12:44 AM
That site Buzzard posted is total horsecrap! :laugh:

Seriously, the only conservative, reformed, evangelical Christian denomination on there is the Southern Baptists! No wonder it was easy to find four of them that didn't like the death penalty!

And why is that VCU? Is it because you only think that you and your sect are "True Christians?" Your lack of a valid response and your argument of "my religion is better than your religion" is total horse crap and something I would expect from a child. Care to do some research and posting a link to your findings where you say that all of these Christian denominations are pro DP? I'll be waiting, though I doubt that you have it in you to actually do the research. You'd much rather hide from the fact that many Christian denominations are not pro DP, and pulling your head from the sand may actually open up your eyes.

Buzzard
05-06-2009, 12:54 AM
I know the Bible doesnt contridict itself. Therefore, if GOD orders State Excution and Wars...he cant be viewing them as breaking the commandments...thats simple logic :)

Then you don't know squat and can't admit it due to your ego. I can point out many, many contradictions in the bible. A cursory search on google will also point that out.


Yes you did.

We've already determined your not here to learn.:ninja:

Your lame attempt to read my mind makes me chuckle. I can and do learn from others, but not from you due to your inability to put your thoughts out in a concise, educated fashion as some other people on here do.

Buzzard
05-06-2009, 01:00 AM
Yup!!! While people are carrying on about giving these monsters freedoms and second chances do they care about the victims? Do they think what happened to the poor child who was impacted by such a disgusting act? No they don't! :angry:

How do you know that they don't? Have you ever asked them? Have you ever asked me? You just like to bolster your own beliefs with false accusations or downright lies.

VCURamFan
05-06-2009, 01:01 AM
Talking to yourself, Buzzard?

Buzzard
05-06-2009, 01:09 AM
Talking to yourself, Buzzard?

Figured you wouldn't take the challenge.

Hughes_GOAT
05-06-2009, 01:30 AM
Your lame attempt to read my mind makes me chuckle.


you should have said chortle.

J.B.
05-06-2009, 01:41 AM
Buzzard, I already responded to your last diatribe last night, if you want to respond to those points that is fine, otherwise I have lost interest in engaging in this debate with you. You claim you are here to ask questions and learn, but all you do is criticize the Christians that are here and rattle off liberal talking points. Then when you say something ignorant you act like you did nothing wrong.

You are posting links from ONE site, a site that obviously has an ANTI DP view. If you and the others can find some links that are not from that site to start making your point, I will stop bringing it up. It's not a total condemnation of the information, but rather a condemnation of your lack of fairness in assessment of the facts. You act as if you don't fall into any category, but yet to you play to the liberal talking points in almost every single post you make. If you don't like the perception you are getting, maybe you should change your method of delivery.

Buzzard
05-06-2009, 01:55 AM
you should have said chortle.

I'm a little slow on my UKspeak.

Buzzard
05-06-2009, 02:19 AM
Buzzard, I already responded to your last diatribe last night, if you want to respond to those points that is fine, otherwise I have lost interest in engaging in this debate with you. You claim you are here to ask questions and learn, but all you do is criticize the Christians that are here and rattle off liberal talking points. Then when you say something ignorant you act like you did nothing wrong.

Really, all I do is criticize Christians? Why do you feel the need to lie? There have been many worse things said on this forum that you seem to be ok with. I guess it is ok with you as long as you like the messenger.

You are posting links from ONE site, a site that obviously has an ANTI DP view. If you and the others can find some links that are not from that site to start making your point, I will stop bringing it up. It's not a total condemnation of the information, but rather a condemnation of your lack of fairness in assessment of the facts.

If you don't like the site, find another and link me to it. How is my assessment of the facts unfair? Do your own legwork and quit whining, because that is what it sounds like. The site is a site with information about the death penalty. If you feel that you can debunk the information there, go for it. I will gladly accept and read through your research if you will actually do some.

You act as if you don't fall into any category, but yet to you play to the liberal talking points in almost every single post you make. If you don't like the perception you are getting, maybe you should change your method of delivery.

It really doesn't matter what label you wish to place on me, as I look at each issue individually. Some issues I side with conservative views, while others I may side with libertarians. Yet again others I may hold a centrist or other view. It just so happens the last few threads I have replied to I have differing opinions than you, and you wish to conveniently label me. I get the point that you don't like liberal views, unless they favor your party or are in agreement with you. I'm not going to change for you, so either accept my views for what they are, or don't. It doesn't bother me if you choose not to respond, as I will still post accordingly.

Enjoy your evening, it's time for hockey.

Hughes_GOAT
05-06-2009, 02:32 AM
I'm a little slow on my UKspeak.
Dave loves "chortle" LOL

VCURamFan
05-06-2009, 02:41 AM
I think I'm going to officially retire from this thread. After arguing constitutional law all semester, writing a paper on capital punishment, and now re-reading Supreme Court cases to prepare for Thursday's exam, I'm burnt out.

If you like, Buzzard, I'll even let you count this one as a win for you.

J.B.
05-06-2009, 02:49 AM
Enjoy your evening, it's time for hockey.

Here is the last response I gave you on this issue that you missed.
http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/showpost.php?p=38274&postcount=81

You have been posting here for a long time, and you had a different name before. I have rarely agreed with you on anything that has to do with religion or politics. So, it's not just a couple threads. Sorry, but you always seem to have snotty attitude about topics like this, and it always seems like you step over the line when it comes up.

May God Bless You. I am retiring from this thread also.