Against the Death Penalty?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CHESTERTONRULES
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
block said:
The bottom line is, nobody has the right to kill anybody. This is what Jesus told me. Thank you.
Click to expand...
What about a policeman or a soldier?

What about a father protecting his children?

Do you really believe what you wrote, or were you being rhetorical?
 
block said:
Well, you seem to be confused still. You say that I am stating my opinion but this is not true. I question which one of us is doing just that. I seem to not be able to convince you that the death penalty is not right, you keep throwing stats at me about what the killer might do. But you ignore everything that I am saying to you. So therefor, I will not be responding to you anymore because my responses are not being used properly. God bless and thank you for a nice discussion.
Click to expand...
I believe your view is short sighted and that it increases the number of innocent deaths.

The facts are on my side.

You seem to think that minimizing innocent deaths is not the primary factor.
 
CHESTERTONRULES said:
I believe your view is short sighted and that it increases the number of innocent deaths.

The facts are on my side.

You seem to think that minimizing innocent deaths is not the primary factor.
Click to expand...
Yes the facts are on your side but the church is on mine. And I am responding to say that I added to what I said earlier about nobody has the right to kill anybody. If an innocent life is being threatened then all means necessary should be used to protect it. Thank you again.
 
block said:
So in God’s eyes, it would be ok for the state to kill that person but not for somebody else? If He wants them dead then what does it matter who does it?
Click to expand...
It matters a great deal who does what! For instance, you wouldn’t walk up to someone, take their money, and give it to someone you felt needed it, or to some worthy cause, but that is exactly what the State does when it collects taxes. It takes some of your money and gives it to “worthy causes” like defence, infrastructure, etc.

My point: It’s not the place of private individuals to carry out the jobs of the State (unless, that is, the State employs them to do just that, but in that case, they are part of the State, and not acting as themselves, but on behalf of the State).

What you’re suggesting is anarchy.
 
CHESTERTONRULES said:
It has nothing to do with revenge.

Our most brutal murderers have a history of being repeat offenders.

You want to force other less dangerous prisoners and prison guards to live around brutal killers when you yourself would not make such a sacrifice.

If you won’t support their executions, then you share the guilt for those that they kill.( a miniscule percent of guilt, obviously, but you and those who hold your view contribute to these killings)
Click to expand...
No, actually not all murderers go back to a killing-spree after being released from jail. Are you saying the case of Karla Faye Tucker wasn’t about revenge? You do know even the EU and Pope John Paul II tried to appeal for a reduced sentence/reprieval on her behalf?

I am not a prison guard but i do know that is part of their job scope - they know they go in, and may never come out. They even admit to it. There are also inmates without any previous records of manslaughter or murder, but have been known to murder other prisoners and prison guards. By your admission, every gang-member, robber and rapist should be given the death penalty because they can potentially become murderers whilst in prison. You’d better get rid of them before they kill someone.
 
block said:
Yes the facts are on your side but the church is on mine. And I am responding to say that I added to what I said earlier about nobody has the right to kill anybody. If an innocent life is being threatened then all means necessary should be used to protect it. Thank you again.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but from what I’ve seen you guys post of RC teachings on this subject, I wouldn’t say you were right in saying that you have the RC chuch on your side…
 
LutheranDK said:
It matters a great deal who does what! For instance, you wouldn’t walk up to someone, take their money, and give it to someone you felt needed it, or to some worthy cause, but that is exactly what the State does when it collects taxes. It takes some of your money and gives it to “worthy causes” like defence, infrastructure, etc.

My point: It’s not the place of private individuals to carry out the jobs of the State (unless, that is, the State employs them to do just that, but in that case, they are part of the State, and not acting as themselves, but on behalf of the State).

What you’re suggesting is anarchy.
Click to expand...
Ohh ok well I apologize then. Yes I agree that if talking about the state versus a citizen then the state makes the rules and enforces its own laws.
 
cathopologist said:
I am not a prison guard but i do know that is part of their job scope - they know they go in, and may never come out. They even admit to it.
Click to expand...
Which is utterly unacceptable. Protecting violent criminels over those that guard them is…“reprehensible” is the only word I can come up with that wouldn’t be censured (typo…) :mad:
cathopologist said:
By your admission, every gang-member, robber and rapist should be given the death penalty because they can potentially become murderers whilst in prison. You’d better get rid of them before they kill someone.
Click to expand...
Was that really what he said, or was it what you would have liked him to say?
 
LutheranDK said:
I’m sorry, but from what I’ve seen you guys post of RC teachings on this subject, I wouldn’t say you were right in saying that you have the RC chuch on your side…
Click to expand...
So you believe that the RC Church is for the death penalty? This is an interesting statement and would like to hear more about it if possible.
 
LutheranDK said:
Which is utterly unacceptable. Protecting violent criminels over those that guard them is…“reprehensible” is the only word I can come up with that wouldn’t be censured (typo…) :mad:
Click to expand...
Unacceptable but unavoidable. Do soldiers who go to war always come back home?
LutheranDK said:
Was that really what he said, or was it what you would have liked him to say?
Click to expand...
Its in every subconscience mind. How come he never got reprimanded for putting words into my mouth?
 
block said:
Ok, I read it again. I may even have digested it, not sure though. You said that if they are 100% sure then the death penatly would be ok. So I’m asking you, if YOU are 100% sure, which is why I said somebody came up to you and admitted it, then why would you not have that same right to kill that person?
Click to expand...
Simple… I am not the LAW, nor am I the State, nor am I appointed by legally elected officials to do so. Even if I am 100% certain that the individual is guilty, and even if I saw the murderer do the crime, the law does not give me the right or power to “execute” someone.
The bottom line is, nobody has the right to kill anybody. This is what Jesus told me. Thank you. REVISION And yes of course if an innocent life is being threatened then yes i feel it is ok to protect that life by any means necessary.
Click to expand...
Oh…wait, “nobody” has the right to kill anybody… but “you feel its OK to protect “that” life by any means necessary”?

Do you realize that you just completely conflicted yourself?

“Any means necessary”…includes deadly force.
 
I don’t think “any means necessary” necessarily meant using lethal methods. :confused:
 
RobHom said:
CHESTERTONRULES;4623750:
I still believe in the validity of the state’s right to invoke Capital Punishment…but the bar of proof must be higher than it is now!!
Click to expand...
I believe the bar is very high.

Would you agree that once indisputable guilt is established in a capitol murder case that the execution should be carried out in a more timely manner?

I think this would reduce the risk of additional murders and increase the deterrent effect, both of which would save innocent lives.
Click to expand...
 
cathopologist said:
Unacceptable but unavoidable. Do soldiers who go to war always come back home?
Click to expand...
Aside from the fact that the two “occupations” are not equivalent, but where soldiers are concerned…it is a piece of knowledge that is clearly ingrained, yet we work very hard not to let it happen. War is a completely different scenario, and soldiers are well armed, whereas most correctional officers working on cell blocks are not armed. They rely on their wits and strength to avoid harm.

Here is an article about a Corrections Officer who was killed in a facility near where I live… dc.state.fl.us/pub/compass/0307/2.html

In Florida the CO’s are not armed inside the fence, and only the CO’s in the towers and the vehicles outside are armed.

There is a difference between CO’s and Combat Troops.
 
CHESTERTONRULES said:
RobHom;4623920:
I believe the bar is very high.
Click to expand...
While it may be high, it could be higher, and should be.
Would you agree that once indisputable guilt is established in a capitol murder case that the execution should be carried out in a more timely manner?
Click to expand...
If it is 100% proven to be 100% indisputable…I have to agree. But its that 100% thing that has to be made.
I think this would reduce the risk of additional murders and increase the deterrent effect, both of which would save innocent lives.
Click to expand...
It would certainly reduce risk, but as to the deterrent effect, the jury is out on that… But it could well have the desired effect.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top