Capital Punishment

[heavycola]

Dimes the source is here: http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenal ... -stats-eng
Turns out I was wrong about the year, looks like the US stopped putting children to death in 2003. Until then it was relatively prolific.

The jury system is not perfect. But I would rather a guilty person go free than an innocent person be put to death. I am against the death penatly for so many reasons, but this is one of the stongest. State and federal courts have condemned innocent men and women to death, which makes them no better, in that respect, than the murderers they claim to be punishing, even if you DON'T believe that killing a guilty man is murder (which I do, obviously)

Gusicard have you read Burmese Days? (i love Orwell too).

[2dimes]

Dimes the source is here: http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenal ... -stats-eng
Turns out I was wrong about the year, looks like the US stopped putting children to death in 2003. Until then it was relatively prolific.

Good work, I don't shock easily.

I'm baffled, I'm having difficulty believing it but can't even imagine a single reason to make something like that up.

[2dimes]

I want to go on at length regarding the child thing but have nothing to say.
Wow just wow.



This is solid I cannot disagree.

There are hundreds of cases all over the world of people sentenced to life imprisonment being freed after further evidence comes to light years later, and there are cases of people wrongly executed. We CANNOT take away someone's life if there is any chance they are innocent, and as this happens surprisingly frequently then we shouldn't even contemplate capital punishment.

Thirdly, for many a lifetime in prison is a worse punishment than death. Think how many serial killers have committed suicide whilst inside! Death is an easy way out for many murderers. if you had to sit in a sell day after day contemplating what you'd done, and you new you'd never be free for the rest of your life, I'm sure death would be nothing like a punishment to you! Far worse to have your freedom taken away.

We have to dissociate the issue of capital punishment from that of current penal reform and policy. If we let criminals out on parole too early that's a travesty, and the system needs to be reformed, but killing them isn't the answer. Life should mean life, and we should have more concrete sentences, but examples of the state letting killers go and them re offending doesn't mean they should be killed, it just means the current system isn't working too well and they should be locked up for life.

[luns101]

There is one reference that you missed luns, i'll give it to you so you won't have to use the thief on the cross nonsense next time (that was embarrassingly weak). Mark 9:42 - Jesus, in reference to little children, said that if anyone would harm one of them, it would be better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck, and be cast into the depths of the sea. It's repeated in Matthew 18 and Luke 17.

As Spock used to say, "fascinating". I didn't think about that passage. My first thought is that this passage is referring to God's judgement on people who persecute his believers, not government applying the judgement. I'm going to read it again now that you brought it up.

[luns101]

Luns - then perhaps you understand mine! And i did apologise for what i admit was a rubbish kneejerk comment.

Cool, I let it fly once in awhile too.

But beezer was really getting on my nerves. I never used the bible to argue for or against anything, i merely tried to show that in my understanding - which is as valid as anyone else's, i have read the damn thing and i don't believe, is all - killing people is wrong. The sixth commandment, for a start. I was taught that jesus brought the new covenant to replace the old one. Can't see 'murder is OK' in either one.

From talking with beezer I think he and I share a common belief...that we are entering a new period of history in the world where the Christian position on any subject is just automatically dismissed without serious consideration. I think that he as well as I get so frustrated that when we make our points, we tend to go 'overkill'. However, that doesn't excuse the dismissal of our points either. I believe there was more than just one covenant in the Bible.

And further, that using the bible as support for these views is as abhorrent as Fred Phelps claiming that picketing dead soldiers' funerals is OK too according to the good book, or Aryan Nation invoking god to justify their hatred, or imams claiming the koran promises 72 virgins in paradise to suicide bombers. It is, to me, just as wrong.

This is the problem I think we're having. You believe I (and others) are using the Bible to justify our own positions [such as capital punishment]. We believe that it's the other way around - that our worldview is being shaped by the Bible. These other groups that you mention are abhorrant. Perhaps you would make an exception on capital punishment in the case of Fred Phelps!

(And i agree with b.k. - the thief on the cross argument is horribly weak.)

I took at least 5 seconds to think of that one! Horrible??!! Oh well, I don't see it that way.

[Guiscard]

Gusicard have you read Burmese Days? (i love Orwell too).

Yeh. A module I'm taking at the moment uses Burmese Days and Forster's A Passage to India in the context of primary sources due to the time both authors spent in India/Burma. To be honest I found Burmese Days the weaker of the two, and either a bit too politicised or tarnished by his pretty nightmarish time (read the Sheldon biography?).

Got to do an essay tonight on the social exclusiveness inherent in Colonial India... so I'll be fed up of them both by 5am

[Jenos Ridan]

From talking with beezer I think he and I share a common belief...that we are entering a new period of history in the world where the Christian position on any subject is just automatically dismissed without serious consideration. I think that he as well as I get so frustrated that when we make our points, we tend to go 'overkill'. However, that doesn't excuse the dismissal of our points either. I believe there was more than just one covenant in the Bible.

From my understanding, there is only one covenant, God's wish that his children be restored to a place of being in his presence. That was the intent in Eden, that is the reallity in Heaven and, according to the Lord's Prayer, "On Earth, as it is in Heaven". The power and authority God gave to Adam and Eve is ours as well because Jesus, on the cross, died to restore that which was lost to us.

And further, that using the bible as support for these views is as abhorrent as Fred Phelps claiming that picketing dead soldiers' funerals is OK too according to the good book, or Aryan Nation invoking god to justify their hatred, or imams claiming the koran promises 72 virgins in paradise to suicide bombers. It is, to me, just as wrong.

This is the problem I think we're having. You believe I (and others) are using the Bible to justify our own positions [such as capital punishment]. We believe that it's the other way around - that our worldview is being shaped by the Bible. These other groups that you mention are abhorrant. Perhaps you would make an exception on capital punishment in the case of Fred Phelps!

That is the idea, not your will, but God's, right?

[b.k. barunt]

How about a child molester? In this country, they are "rehabilitated" and let back out to do it again, and again . . . I can understand aversion to violence and taking someone's life, but the children need to be protected. Someone who harms a child needs to be taken out, and if he is not, and harms another, then that child's blood is on the hands of those who could have, but did not remove the threat.

[Guiscard]

How about a child molester? In this country, they are "rehabilitated" and let back out to do it again, and again . . . I can understand aversion to violence and taking someone's life, but the children need to be protected. Someone who harms a child needs to be taken out, and if he is not, and harms another, then that child's blood is on the hands of those who could have, but did not remove the threat.

'Somebody please think of the children!!!'

The children need to be protected... then life imprisonment! Why do we have to kill? I said it before and I'll say it again, current penal systems may be entirely inadequate, people may get parole when it is unsafe, people may be released early... But that doesn't mean its OK to start legally murdering criminals! It just means the penal system needs to be reformed so life means life and child molesters get harsher sentences.

'Removing the threat' in no way needs to involve the state-sponsored murder of a criminal. It just means we need to reform the law so jail terms are harsher.

Where does it stop? Child molesters - rapists - wife beaters - punch-ups in the pub...

I strongly believe that if we allow governments to enact capital punishment it is open to all kinds of abuses. You've seen how easily sham laws such as the patriot act in the US and the terrorist detention laws in the UK have been passed... How long before a government decides certain types of crime don't need a trial, or can be tried in secret... Bye bye political opponants!

[CrazyAnglican]

Finally Paul - he said he would submit to the death penalty if he (by law) deserved it. How could you possibly construe this to mean that Paul advocated the same? He was merely submitting to the law.

And the Roman law included the death penalty. If convicted of it, Paul would submit to the authority of the Roman government. Although he believed himself to be innocent of anything that deserved death.

Those are my points. That's what I believe the scripture teaches. That's why I believe in the death penalty. Other people believe in it for different reasons than myself. You obviously have a different take on it.

As I've stated I'm not really pro death penalty. Historically this one is interesting though. Roman citizens were immune to the death penalty. Paul was a Roman citizen and did eventually accept death for his beliefs, as many others did at that time. Not really an arguing point just thought I could help shed light on this particular point.

[luns101]

Where does it stop? Child molesters - rapists - wife beaters - punch-ups in the pub...

In my opinion the death penalty should only be applied towards murderers.

[btownmeggy]

Roman citizens were immune to the death penalty.

What?? No.

LINK??

A quick Google search seems to prove you wrong.

[CrazyAnglican]

Roman citizens were immune to the death penalty.

What?? No.

LINK??

A quick Google search seems to prove you wrong.

Nope, no cited source on this one. I was quoting my Roman history professor, and she was kind of a nut job.

[Guiscard]

Roman citizens were immune to the death penalty.

What?? No.

LINK??

A quick Google search seems to prove you wrong.

Nope, no cited source on this one. I was quoting my Roman history professor, and she was kind of a nut job.

You're right to an extent...

Salust's Conspiracy of Catiline describes a debate between the future Emperor Julius Caeser and Decimus Silanus as to whether a traitor should be put to death, the traitor being a citizen legally immune from capital punishment by Roman law. I believe Caeser wins the debate.

This is Caesar's response: HERE

edit: bow to my superior knowledge of Antiquity!

[Stopper]

This is Caesar's response: HERE

edit: bow to my superior knowledge of Antiquity!

Caesar said that, did he? Had a bit of an unfair advantage, didn't he, what with actually living in Antiquity an' all?

[Guiscard]

Caesar said that, did he? Had a bit of an unfair advantage, didn't he, what with actually living in Antiquity an' all?

Lets not play silly buggers now...

[Kill_Schmitty]

[quote="heavycola"]Dimes the source is here: http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenal ... -stats-eng
Turns out I was wrong about the year, looks like the US stopped putting children to death in 2003. Until then it was relatively prolific.

[quote]

There is a huge debate about killing people under 18. but the average time for sitting on death row is 12 years which make them about 28-30 by the time of their death. also (im not sure just a thought) i think that a big case with a minor would take about a year, so they would be sentenced after they were 18.

[Guiscard]

There is a huge debate about killing people under 18. but the average time for sitting on death row is 12 years which make them about 28-30 by the time of their death. also (im not sure just a thought) i think that a big case with a minor would take about a year, so they would be sentenced after they were 18.

by your logic you could then sentence people at the age of 6 because, after sitting on death row for 12 years, they'd be an adult and therefore viable for capital punishment...

Come one.

[unriggable]

Come one.

Come on

[btownmeggy]

Roman citizens were immune to the death penalty.

What?? No.

LINK??

A quick Google search seems to prove you wrong.

Nope, no cited source on this one. I was quoting my Roman history professor, and she was kind of a nut job.

You're right to an extent...

Salust's Conspiracy of Catiline describes a debate between the future Emperor Julius Caeser and Decimus Silanus as to whether a traitor should be put to death, the traitor being a citizen legally immune from capital punishment by Roman law. I believe Caeser wins the debate.

This is Caesar's response: HERE

edit: bow to my superior knowledge of Antiquity!

That's REPUBLICAN Rome, noob.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_emperor#Powers

I'll admit this is not really something I know a whole lot about, but it seemed like a very strange, contrary-to-reality sort of statement. When I googled "capital punishment ancient Rome", there CERTAINLY seemed to be a lot of evidence for it being practiced against Roman citizens through both the Republican and Imperial periods.

...Not that any of this really matters in regards to this thread. I started it though. Sorry. Anyway. Continue.

[Guiscard]

That's REPUBLICAN Rome, noob.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_emperor#Powers

I don't understand what you're saying...

I posted an example of a genuine source text (not just Wiki) which proved that, at least to an extent, Roman citizens had an immunity from capital punishment, at least for a time. They were exiled instead. Its quite an interesting argument against Capital Punishment really! Caesar makes some of the same points many of us have been making...

Anyway, lets get on with the debate

[Kill_Schmitty]

There is a huge debate about killing people under 18. but the average time for sitting on death row is 12 years which make them about 28-30 by the time of their death. also (im not sure just a thought) i think that a big case with a minor would take about a year, so they would be sentenced after they were 18.

by your logic you could then sentence people at the age of 6 because, after sitting on death row for 12 years, they'd be an adult and therefore viable for capital punishment...

Come one.

i never said i agreed with it. I think the death penalty is only for adults who commited the crime after they became adults. and actually it might as well be 16. by then your close enough to an adult.

[wiggybowler]

You know if someone kills someone, I think they should have the same thing done to them. If they burned someone to death, then burn them to death.

[vtmarik]

You know if someone kills someone, I think they should have the same thing done to them. If they burned someone to death, then burn them to death.

It's trite, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Revengeful killing is still murder.

[flashleg8]

You know if someone kills someone, I think they should have the same thing done to them. If they burned someone to death, then burn them to death.

What if the murder killed 5 people in different ways?!