Fair enough.

But I think lawful judging becomes something more when we kill the person.

I Wear Pants;508091 wrote:I really doubt that Jesus would have been a supporter of the death penalty. I mean, large parts of the Bible and Jesus' teaching is about how judging others isn't something we should really be doing. Then there is the whole "You shall not kill." thing. I don't recall there being a "except if he did something bad" after that.

jmog;508249 wrote:1. I have already stated I'm not sure what Jesus would have said about the death penalty.
2. Jesus' talks on judging others is about personal judging as in treating someone different or disowning them because you don't agree with what they are doing wrong. He never condemns lawful judging (as in judgements by the law of the land).
3. The Hebrew word for "kill" in the 10 commandments is more accurately translated as murder in most modern translations of the Bible, or kill without cause.

The same guy who received the 10 Commandments and "You shall not kill" (or "murder") is the same one who received the dozens of laws in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy- violations of which required the death penalty.

Obviously, government bears a huge responsibility in:

a) getting the evidence and "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" right before putting someone to death. On that matter, our justice system, while far from perfect, has way more safeguards to make sure that does happen.

b) not putting people to death for political dissonance or other trivial matters- like a Joseph Stalin, etc.

In an un typical post, I will post something serious.


If one person is killed in error. It is not worth killing a thousand murderers rapist and child molesters.

Many times in the past few years, people on death row have been exonerated. either by new evidence or new technology. what are we suppose to do when we kill an innocent person, Pray to Jesus and ask him to tell the innocent person "whoops, sorry...our bad"?

jhay78;508311 wrote:b) not putting people to death for political dissonance or other trivial matters- like a Joseph Stalin, etc.

Could you not use Romans 13:8 to argue for that as well?

Bomber, one good way to prevent that is to (during trial) allow all evidence to be tried. There's way too many cases with evidence not being allowed to be tried that ends in bad trials IMO.
Not allowing all evidence opens two doors. One door that prevents good evidence to convict. One door that prevents evidence from exonerating.

I would MUCH rather have a longer trial than a misspent one.

Since humans are imperfect and have biases, I will retain my point of view. one person killed in error is not worth it.

That's alright, and I respect your opinion on it. I'm just saying that there ARE ways to lessen the probability. Plus with the technology that we have today, it also greatly reduces unjust outcomes.

Thread Bomber;508338 wrote:Since humans are imperfect and have biases, I will retain my point of view. one person killed in error is not worth it.

So torture them. If it turns out they were innocent we might at least make an attempt at restitution which is not the case when you kill them.

So much for the constitiution........


As far as restitution, I have no problem with hard labor to assist paying for their incarceration. it is supposed to be prison, not a day spa and sexual playground.

CenterBHSFan;508328 wrote:Bomber, one good way to prevent that is to (during trial) allow all evidence to be tried. There's way too many cases with evidence not being allowed to be tried that ends in bad trials IMO.
Not allowing all evidence opens two doors. One door that prevents good evidence to convict. One door that prevents evidence from exonerating.

I would MUCH rather have a longer trial than a misspent one.

Even if that evidence is unconstitutionally gained? That's a reason that evidence isn't alllowed.

I have heard nothing still that justifies how we can kill innocent people (which occasionally happens in any capital punishment system) and retain our own humanity and innocence. I cannot abide even one innocent person being executed when there are perfectly acceptable alternatives.

As for restitution I have no problem with having inmates do something productive. I don't think it should necessarily be "hard labor" but having them do something productive isn't bad.

Thread Bomber;508338 wrote:Since humans are imperfect and have biases, I will retain my point of view. one person killed in error is not worth it.

Since humans are imperfect and have biases should we as a nation never meet out justice on the field of battle? In the process of meeting out justice on the guilty we kill many innocents. I mean if innocents are accidentally killed or intentionally killed and accepted as "collateral" damage, is war never worth it?

There are many changes that could be made concerning the death penalty. I understand your concern but I don't that is a reason to eliminate it.

War is rarely worth it. But that's also a little bit different proposition since the other person has the capacity and is trying to actively kill you/us. A dude sitting behind bars isn't going to get us so killing him isn't necessary.

I Wear Pants;508405 wrote:Even if that evidence is unconstitutionally gained? That's a reason that evidence isn't alllowed.

I have heard nothing still that justifies how we can kill innocent people (which occasionally happens in any capital punishment system) and retain our own humanity and innocence. I cannot abide even one innocent person being executed when there are perfectly acceptable alternatives.

As for restitution I have no problem with having inmates do something productive. I don't think it should necessarily be "hard labor" but having them do something productive isn't bad.

1. I don't know the percentage of the cases where evidence isn't allowed due to constitutionality.
2. We have had the death penalty in this country since day one, and I think our humanity is still there.
3. I think the level of labor should be appropriate to the crime.
- tax cheat makes license plates
- murderers work on a chain gang in Mississippi in July harvesting crops or working a rock quarry with pickaxes

1. Neither do I. I may have phrased it incorrectly. I just meant that if the cops planted a camera in some guys house without a warrant and it noticed him wearing a pink hoody and a murder was committed by a man in a pink hoody it isn't like they should be allowed to use that video. Just an example but I was trying to say that there are usually pretty good reasons for evidence being disallowed.

2. Somewhat, except that we've killed a bunch of innocents over the years. I don't know how I can support the death penalty and then when I die answer to god why I thought they deserved to die.

3. I agree.

I Wear Pants;508422 wrote:War is rarely worth it. But that's also a little bit different proposition since the other person has the capacity and is trying to actively kill you/us. A dude sitting behind bars isn't going to get us so killing him isn't necessary.

True the other person in war many times is actively trying to kill us. But that has not always been the case in many of our wars. Wars are not fought just for the purpose of self defense. But also as a deterrent to send a message to other nations how much value we place on our citizens, possessions and our right to pursue life as we please. Any nation considering killing or stealing them will be met with swift justice and the penalty will be death for a significant number of their citizens.

One angle many don't think of is the death penalty shows just how much value we place on life as a society. The value of something is the price we pay for it. When someone steals a life they should justly be made to pay the price for it.

The way most states carry out the death penalty in this country could be greatly changed. A heinous murderer sitting on death row for 15-20yrs is not justice. The instances that the death penalty is used need to be reduced but when that judgment is brought down is should be swift.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/05/chesire.connecticut.murders/index.html?hpt=C1

Today is the first I've heard of this story. These men brutally raped and murdered a mother and her two daughters in a horrific fashion.

America is one of only two democratic-republics in the world that retained the death penalty with the other being Israel who as only used it as a punishment for those behind the Holocaust.

The death penalty disproportionately affects minorities (or at least, did) and is administered arbitrarily and has taken the life of innocent people who feel pain and experienced the realness of that injustice in every way.

I believe that because the death penalty might permanently remove once conscious human beings who too have lived, laughed and loved from the world that even one of those is a high price to pay as we cannot repay them for a mistake.

nonetheless, allowing awful people like these two men a silent, boring, albeit miserable sanctuary isolated from society...although awful is not enough...and killing them painlessly is no retribution and even if it were, we risk placing that retribution unjustly on an innocent.

These men ought to be tied to a bed and waterboarded with gasoline....similar to what they did to those little girls. That is retribution.

Not only do I think this normative but I think we fail to respect them as real rational agents if we do not instill a harm unto them that they've done to others...such an awful one anyways. By golly, I dare say such a punishment might be something close to a fundamental right. I have a right to be tortured in natural law if I should violate it so viciously to have that viciousness returned back to me.

If we fail and torture an innocent man...we might be able to try and fix this failure...surely not all the way but a large damage award might be at least something....all we know for sure about death is that you don't come back.

A silent and nearly painless death does not restore the pendulum of justice for this murdered family. In fact, even a painful death as I don't think the pain would last long enough.

As far as any constitutional concerns;

The phrase "cruel and unusual" has a different meaning depending on the social norms upon which that phrase guides...what is "cruel and unusual" to Jane's who believe bugs to contain the souls of their former brethren is not "cruel and unusual" to Ghenghis Khan, etc.

I'm for it. I say this knowing the next person that is due to be executed in Ohio tomorrow.

I remember him and hanging around me and some of my older friends back in the late 70's, early 80's where I grew up. He was quite a few years older than me, but just a few years older than some of my friends. Small world I guess.

Here's the story --> http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/10/05/Ohio-prepares-for-8th-execution-of-2010/UPI-20041286315855/

majorspark;508514 wrote:True the other person in war many times is actively trying to kill us. But that has not always been the case in many of our wars. Wars are not fought just for the purpose of self defense. But also as a deterrent to send a message to other nations how much value we place on our citizens, possessions and our right to pursue life as we please. Any nation considering killing or stealing them will be met with swift justice and the penalty will be death for a significant number of their citizens.

One angle many don't think of is the death penalty shows just how much value we place on life as a society. The value of something is the price we pay for it. When someone steals a life they should justly be made to pay the price for it.

The way most states carry out the death penalty in this country could be greatly changed. A heinous murderer sitting on death row for 15-20yrs is not justice. The instances that the death penalty is used need to be reduced but when that judgment is brought down is should be swift.

I'd be alright with that. As I've said, I cannot support the death penalty as there will always be mistakes but a decent compromise would be limiting the situations in which it can be used.

FatHobbit;508316 wrote:Could you not use Romans 13:8 to argue for that as well?

It could be twisted for that purpose, for sure. But the context of that verse is clearly the punishment of "evildoers", aka, criminals, not people who disagree with their government.

jmog;508249 wrote: 3. The Hebrew word for "kill" in the 10 commandments is more accurately translated as murder in most modern translations of the Bible, or kill without cause.

Sounds like Orwell's Animal Farm.

I Wear Pants;508451 wrote:
2. Somewhat, except that we've killed a bunch of innocents over the years. I don't know how I can support the death penalty and then when I die answer to god why I thought they deserved to die.

Agree completely

jhay78;508311 wrote:The same guy who received the 10 Commandments and "You shall not kill" (or "murder") is the same one who received the dozens of laws in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy- violations of which required the death penalty.

Obviously, government bears a huge responsibility in:

a) getting the evidence and "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" right before putting someone to death. On that matter, our justice system, while far from perfect, has way more safeguards to make sure that does happen.

b) not putting people to death for political dissonance or other trivial matters- like a Joseph Stalin, etc.

I will have to double check to make sure, but I am pretty sure the 10 commandments were "given" to Moses by God, but the rest of the law was written by the priests/leaders, not given by God.

As in the punishment for breaking Jewish law, described all over the Pentateuch/Torah, was written by the leaders of the Jews, not by God himself.

jmog;511689 wrote:I will have to double check to make sure, but I am pretty sure the 10 commandments were "given" to Moses by God, but the rest of the law was written by the priests/leaders, not given by God.

As in the punishment for breaking Jewish law, described all over the Pentateuch/Torah, was written by the leaders of the Jews, not by God himself.

As an example, Exodus 20 records the giving of the 10 commandments to Moses, and then the very next chapter (21:12-17) gives multiple examples of specific laws and their punishments, several of which involve the death penalty. Unless someone wants to say that chapter 21 was fabricated and not revealed to Moses, then you'd have to say both involved God/Moses, as the text claims (Ex. 20:22).

The next chapter does not say it was given by God, the 10 commandments are said multiple times to have been given by God.

How do you know that after he got the 10, that him and leaders/priests didn't decide on what the punishments should be in their nation?

jmog;511761 wrote:The next chapter does not say it was given by God, the 10 commandments are said multiple times to have been given by God.

How do you know that after he got the 10, that him and leaders/priests didn't decide on what the punishments should be in their nation?

Maybe they did, but then you'd have to say that the clear language of 20:22 ("the LORD said to Moses"), which continues to present God as the speaker in chapter 21, is a fabrication and the text is lying. I understand that the 10 commandments were etched in stone by the finger of God (Deut. 10:4) and have a more universal application than the rest of the OT laws. But God is presented as the speaker in chapter 21, where the death penalty is prescribed.

A more universal application of the death penalty comes from Gen. 9:6: "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God he made man." I think a responsible use of the death penalty, carried out by a responsible government after a fair trial, for most cases of murder, can be justified biblically.