Evidence for God from Science

Do you support the death penalty? Why or why not?

In the Bible, it says "an eye for an eye."

I voted no. I believe the death penalty to be a fair punishment for certain crimes, but then I'm not sure it can be meted out justly by humans. I use to be yes, and perhaps still would be in extremely certain cases, but then there is the risk of error and abuse.

Kurieuo.

No. Once a crimial is in captivity and put away safely where he can do no harm then there is no reason to kill him.

no. people change. they should be given that chance. by killing people, we are taking away their chance to repent and find salvation.

besides, being kept alive is often a much greater punishment than death.

No. Once a crimial is in captivity and put away safely where he can do no harm then there is no reason to kill him.
_________________
Are you threatening me Master Skeptic?

Are you a Catholic or live in a Western country outside the U.S.? Catholics tend to be more anti-death penalty and economically liberal than Protestants.

Prodigal Son wrote:no. people change. they should be given that chance. by killing people, we are taking away their chance to repent and find salvation.

besides, being kept alive is often a much greater punishment than death.

I disagree, because the Bible clearly states an eye for an eye and he who spills man's blood so shall his blood be spilled. Almost all criminals turn back to crime. To use tax payers' money (most of whom are Christians) to help keep alive people who harm God's children may be going against God.

ochotseat wrote:I disagree, because the Bible clearly states an eye for an eye and he who spills man's blood so shall his blood be spilled. Almost all criminals turn back to crime. To use tax payers' money (most of whom are Christians) to help keep alive people who harm God's children may be going against God.

The Bible clearly outlines forgiveness and loving your enemies also. I don't believe it is right to bind or apply Israel's governing laws to all nations.

Yet, one must also be aware there is a time where God hands someone over to themselves. For such people I believe there is no return, however whether we are fit judges to know someone would never change is another question. Change is irrelevant however, as although it is better to preserve life, the death penalty is still a fair and just penalty for some crimes. As ocho keeps pointing to the "eye for eye" phrases, such is fair precisely because the same thing is taken as payment for ones crime. You purposely poke someones eye, it is equal if yours is poked. You take someones life, it is equally fair yours is taken.

Now can the death penalty a fair punishment? Yes. Can it be meted out accurately and justly? Unless God is judge, I strongly doubt it can.

Kurieuo.

Against it.

When you kill someone, you're denying them precious time that they could've used for redemption. Plus there's innocent people being killed O_O it's better for someone to go to jail or a rehab clinic than to die, and who are we; humans to decide who will die and who will not? Only God can do that.

besides, being kept alive is often a much greater punishment than death.

And, a life sentence is cheaper on the government when compared to a death penalty. When you're doling out an absolute punishment, you have to be absolutely sure, so these criminals go through the courts so many times, it just costs so much more something even I, the great oz, didn't know till recently.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:And, a life sentence is cheaper on the government when compared to a death penalty.

I'd beg to differ... I don't know about over there, but over here in Australia I've heard it costs about $200 000/year to have someone incarcerated. I can't imagine an injection or what-have-you would be more expensive than that?

Kurieuo

I believe Jesus Christ gave us His take on the death penalty. Clearly, the two criminals crucified next to Him were guilty and had been justly convicted of their crimes. At no time did our lord indicate the punishment for them was immoral or unfair. He did not speak out against a legal process that condemned these two men. These two men did however respond in completely different ways to the evidence before them of who Jesus was: one remaind a reprobate who reviled Jesus and refused eternal salvation; the other, trusted in who Jesus was, was saved and joined the lord in paradise (heaven) that very day.

Clearly, as we sin, we must understand that consequences will come and will have to be faced. Realize however, that Jesus was innocent, i.e. the death penalty is not always correctly applied and potentially an innocent person might be executed. Therefore, I am morally opposed to a death penalty, because I am not God (only He knows the true guilt or innocence of a person) and everyone deserves the time and opportunity to truly repent and accept the good news of salvation.

ochotseat and others:

firstly, the recidivism rate is no indication of a criminal's inability to change. it is a result of the poverty of our prisons' reform programs, or the complete lack thereof. also, the lack of social supports/education available for criminal's upon release. prisons with adequate supports/reform have decreased recidivism rates.

secondly, there were many issues Jesus did no discuss. i do know one thing he said, "He among you who is without sin, let him cast the first stone." talking about killing people is sometimes glamorous/cool/"powerful", but many would feel defferently about the death penalty if they were chosen to pull the switch, give the injection, or release the gas; they'd feel differently if they were to watch an execution. why? because deep down they know it's wrong to take another's life. because they know Jesus will not be saying, "hey, bob, you know the time you killed that guy? good job! oh, how about the time you advocated to kill that other one? that was even better!"

thirdly, criminality is a social creation. there are few if no criminals that are "born that way." any moral individual knows that the mass extermination of our pet population is inhumane/wrong. why? because we have created the problem. we are responsible for allowing the animals in our care to reproduce to a point where they are no longer wanted. the same goes for criminals. society is responsible for their creation. killing a criminal is a shunning of responsibility and a wonderful example of selfishness, "okay, you're out of control. gotta get rid of you."

lastly, research shows no definative correlation between the death penalty and a decrease in criminal behavior. you know what research does show: that the following cause/increase/and predispose people to criminal behavior...

--child physical, sexual, emotional abuse
--child neglect
--poverty
--illiteracy/poor education
--lack of religious instruction
--teen pregnancy
--exposure to drugs/alcohol
--deprivation of contact with nature/wildlife
--deprivation of access to safe "hang-outs"
--poor nutrition
--poor access to healthcare

so, you really want to make a difference? go be big brothers/big sisters for a child with one or no parents, go advocate for the building of playgrounds in our ghettos, go be a foster parent to a child languishing in a system of abuse/neglect, go stop the destruction of our wildlife and natural resources, go advocate for improved education in our schools, go spread God's word...and stop spreading hate.

p.s. moses was a murderer, i guess his life should have been taken in retaliation?

Against it.

When you kill someone, you're denying them precious time that they could've used for redemption. Plus there's innocent people being killed O_O it's better for someone to go to jail or a rehab clinic than to die, and who are we; humans to decide who will die and who will not? Only God can do that.

Well, most Americans are Christians and support the death penalty. It's cheaper to kill a criminal than to waste much more money on his or her continuous appeals in the face of evidence against him or her.

Prodigal Son wrote:ochotseat and others:

firstly, the recidivism rate is no indication of a criminal's inability to change. it is a result of the poverty of our prisons' reform programs, or the complete lack thereof. also, the lack of social supports/education available for criminal's upon release. prisons with adequate supports/reform have decreased recidivism rates.

secondly, there were many issues Jesus did no discuss. i do know one thing he said, "He among you who is without sin, let him cast the first stone." talking about killing people is sometimes glamorous/cool/"powerful", but many would feel defferently about the death penalty if they were chosen to pull the switch, give the injection, or release the gas; they'd feel differently if they were to watch an execution. why? because deep down they know it's wrong to take another's life. because they know Jesus will not be saying, "hey, bob, you know the time you killed that guy? good job! oh, how about the time you advocated to kill that other one? that was even better!"

thirdly, criminality is a social creation. there are few if no criminals that are "born that way." any moral individual knows that the mass extermination of our pet population is inhumane/wrong. why? because we have created the problem. we are responsible for allowing the animals in our care to reproduce to a point where they are no longer wanted. the same goes for criminals. society is responsible for their creation. killing a criminal is a shunning of responsibility and a wonderful example of selfishness, "okay, you're out of control. gotta get rid of you."

lastly, research shows no definative correlation between the death penalty and a decrease in criminal behavior. you know what research does show: that the following cause/increase/and predispose people to criminal behavior...

--child physical, sexual, emotional abuse
--child neglect
--poverty
--illiteracy/poor education
--lack of religious instruction
--teen pregnancy
--exposure to drugs/alcohol
--deprivation of contact with nature/wildlife
--deprivation of access to safe "hang-outs"
--poor nutrition
--poor access to healthcare

so, you really want to make a difference? go be big brothers/big sisters for a child with one or no parents, go advocate for the building of playgrounds in our ghettos, go be a foster parent to a child languishing in a system of abuse/neglect, go stop the destruction of our wildlife and natural resources, go advocate for improved education in our schools, go spread God's word...and stop spreading hate.

p.s. moses was a murderer, i guess his life should have been taken in retaliation?

Lots of people are born into horrid conditions, but do most of them end up becoming murderers? No. I agree that the death penalty should be restricted to severe crimes (attempted murder, murder, treason, etc). I think God would understand the logic of killing a serial killer who may or may not be one of his children in order to save the lives of many of his precious children.

Kurieuo wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:And, a life sentence is cheaper on the government when compared to a death penalty.

I'd beg to differ... I don't know about over there, but over here in Australia I've heard it costs about $200 000/year to have someone incarcerated. I can't imagine an injection or what-have-you would be more expensive than that?

Kurieuo

We inject butter, actually (help out the dairy industry and all). It costs so much because these guys to go court so much. Courts are expensive, and they don't have to pay for it. The government does. As I said, absolute punishment, they have to be absolutely sure! They go through appeal after appeal after appeal-it adds up.

It's cheaper to kill a criminal than to waste much more money on his or her continuous appeals in the face of evidence against him or her.

They are on death row for I don't remember, at least 6 years at least, and they're going through appeals like toilet paper. More than they would with just a life sentence.

Killing somebody usually takes millions of dollars. I think the injection itself is a few hundred thousand.

Well, most Americans are Christians and support the death penalty. It's cheaper to kill a criminal than to waste much more money on his or her continuous appeals in the face of evidence against him or her.

If there was a murder on your block, a prosecutor worth half his salt could convict you, your dog, and everyone else on your block for
killing that person. Hence the problem with killing someone via state sanctified murder: the system isn't perfect. The mere allegation broadcasted on TV news leads 75% of people to believe that the person is guilty. How many of you think M. Jackson molested those boys? You don't have to answer, you know in your gut what your position is. Most people believe that a person wouldn't be charge if he didn't do it.

Compound the above with the fact that the state murder is final complicates the issue immensely.

Finally, there's just the sheer hyprocrisy of it. You believe murder is not okay, except when the state does it? Or except when the person is a murderer themselves? How do you rationalize this position, yet refuse to allow abortions?

The Catholic Church's position on the death penalty is one of the few positions of that church that I find merits respect. At least you can't argue hypocrisy from the Catholic church on the abortion issue. The church (and some or most of their members) believe that murder is wrong no matter who does it, whether that be a person or a state government.