Express your views on this topic. Should the punishment fit the crime? Is it a deterrent? Are innocent people often executed? What about victims' rights?
42 comments:
Braxton Hicks
said...
There are EVIL people in the world. Gary Gilmore killed two people in Utah and was executed by firing squad on January 17, 1977. He never killed again! Charlie Starkweather killed eleven people in Nebraska & Wyoming during a two month spree with his teenage girlfriend Caril Ann Fugate. He was executed on June 25, 1959. He never killed again. Ted Bundy confessed to 30 murders, but estimates range to over 100. He would bludgeon his victims, then strangle them to death. He was executed on January 24, 1989. He never killed again.
Jeffrey Dahmer should have been executed by the state as he murdered 17 men and boys between 1978 and 1991. His murders were gruesome. He was sentenced to 15 life terms totaling 957 years [sure that makes sense ~ as old as Methusela!] While he expressed remorse he wished for his own death. Dahmer was attacked twice in prison once in July 1994. He was severely beaten by a fellow inmate and died on November 28, 1994. He never killed again.
There are four examples of evil people that needed the death sentence. Does execution act as a deterrent? Not in the United States where the justice system moves far too slowly. Many states do not have the death penalty. If the execution would be carried out more swiftly the it would be a deterrent, but not 10-15 years later. What makes some people think that lives of others are not as important as theirs. They never learned the importance of the commandment, "Thou Shall Not Kill."
Then again, should all murderers have to serve life terms in prison? Death somehow seems like an easy way out. If you are alive you have to think about what you have done. But for serial killers keeping them alive to somehow repent or repeat offenses do any good?
At least if they are executed, they will not be released to kill again.
I have to agree with you Braxton. Call it what you want, but I think it is just punishment. Out hands of justice are slow. While I would hate to have an innocent person executed, it takes too long for punishment to be dolled out. Unfortunately the expense to execute is out of this world. Not for the IV cocktail, but just all the appeals process. Funny how hard most of these people will gladly spend their lives in prison with Bubba, but the death chamber makes them fight to stay alive.
While I would agree that all of the criminals in Braxton's post deserved the death sentence, it is really very easy to obtain lists of people that were executed and later exonerated. I can only imagine what their families must feel like. DNA science continues to exonerated convicted criminals regularly.
I am not necessarily against the death penalty, but I think that we need to be extremely careful before using it.
Convicted killers have more than enough time to be exonerated if they have been wrongfully found guilty. The average length of time between a conviction and an execution is more than eleven years, and all are automatically appealed.
Pulling a few red herrings out of the bag as evidence that the system does not work is a poor way to convey your argument.
Look, the reason it's called "capital punishment" is because it's a capital idea. The mere existence of these low-lifes is an insult to the rest of us.
Is society inhumane because we subject fellow human beings to the death penalty? Would I personally be able to flip the switch? Listen, I could do most of 'em with a bucket of water and a bad extension cord.
Also, I don't understand why we have to go to such great lengths to protect the well-being of condemned prisoners. From 24-hour suicide watches to the alcohol swab before the injection - give me a break! The only thing I would afford these people is the opportunity to give us all a break and off themselves.
I'd decorate their cells with every sharp object known to man. Then I'd make their beds with pre-knotted sheets and place a footstool directly under a strong pipe. I'd put 'em all on the 30th floor with open windows and paint a bullseye on the concrete below.
Yup, things would be different with Orville K. Bass, American, in charge.
In 2009 in the USA, 52 people were executed, 24 of them in Texas alone. Since 1976, 1,191 people were executed, 447 of them in Texas. When in Texas, I definitely avoid spitting my gum on the street while I'm jaywalking figuring that qualifies for the death penalty down there.
Some of the cons to the death penalty are: it is a very expensive process (all the appeals, etc.); it is not a very good deterrent to others that haven't killed yet; it is a political hot potato in that many Americans are absolutely against executions; and, golly, sometimes innocent people die at the hands of the state.
I'm against the death penalty because we don't need it. We have a much more prolific way to kill criminals ... the police. I can't find any statistics on it, but I'd guess, across the USA, the police kill many, many times the criminals than does the justice system. Without a death penalty, this country appears to a bit more civilized. For the bloodthirsty out there ... turn on your police scanners!
A friend described the death penalty as society's defense plea. It protects itself against people who have planned the killing of another human life(s).
Anonymous states that since 1976, 1,191 people have been executed in the US. That is an interesting number, if you consider that since that time, nearly 200 inmates have been exonerated while on death row, due to DNA or other evidence.
This means totally exonerated - not just having the charges dropped. For the complete list of these individuals and details about their cases, visit:
See avenge. 4. requital. Revenge, reprisal, retribution, vengeance suggest a punishment, or injury inflicted in return for one received. Revenge is the carrying out of a bitter desire to injure another for a wrong done to oneself or to those who are felt to be like oneself: to plot revenge. Reprisal, formerly any act of retaliation, is used specifically in warfare for retaliation upon the enemy for its (usually unlawful) actions: to make a raid in reprisal for one by the enemy. Retribution suggests just or deserved punishment, often without personal motives, for some evil done: a just retribution for wickedness. Vengeance is usually wrathful, vindictive, furious revenge: implacable vengeance.
What you call revenge I would call retribution, based on the above.
As you just said, "revenge is the carrying out of a bitter desire to injure another for a wrong done to those who are felt to be like oneself."
Based on that definition, I can safely stand by my previous statement. The death penalty is all about revenge. Society, and one's surviving family members, in particular, are angry and demand an eye for an eye.
What you like to call retribution, I call revenge. Go to your thesaurus. Under retribution, you will find the word revenge. You are parsing words in an attempt to cast a more acceptable light on this behavior.
The death penalty is about revenge, not retribution. Retribution simply means to distribute punishment. A long jail sentence would certainlt be considered retribution by any definition.
Victims' families are not interested in this. They are seeking revenge. They often demand the guilty party be put to death, and often you will hear them say that, in fact, the death penalty is not punishment enough. They will say that the perpetrator should be made to suffer.
Since being anonymous is the way to go.... I say the old adage "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" If you think nothing of killing me or my family, then you too shall reap what you sew. I say hang em high.
The death penalty is not about revenge or retribution. It is a punishment. You think they hung horse thieves and cattle rustlers for revenge? No. Do you think that all the horse's relatives got all worked up and talked to TV reporters and put a lame turban on their head and threatened a big assed lawsuit? No. They just hung the guy because he stole a horse. That is punishment. Guess what? He will never steal a horse again. They did it because they were pissed off the same way that anyone would be if a capital offense had been committed against them or their property. Sure the laws have been changed since then but a capital offense is a capital offense. As always, I will not respond to any comments or personal attacks related to my comments.
The death penalty is a harsh but necessary punishment that certainly fits the crimes for which it is practiced. There is simply no argument against it that sways me.
It is often said that capital punishment is not a deterrent. By this I assume it is meant that murders continue to be committed even though the death penalty is in place. Following that line of reasoning, it would appear that we should also close our prisons, as they aren't deterring crime either. Some people continue to avoid wearing their seatbelts, yet we maintain laws providing a fine for such behavior. You see, deterrence is not necessarily the deciding factor in applying law.
By the way, statistics do show that the death penalty may indeed act as a deterrent. Between 1970 and 1980, the number of annual murders in the United States skyrocketed from 9,960 to 23,040 - a 131% increase. During that time, very few executions were taking place. Capital punishment was outlawed from 1972 until 1976. After capital punishment was reinstituted, from 1980 to 1999, the national murder rate dropped 44%. In 2000, it was at its lowest since 1966.
Some analysts believe that between 3 and 18 lives are saved with each execution. That is because most executions are reserved for the especially heinous murders - most others still receive life sentences or plea bargain down to lesser crimes, such as manslaughter or second-degree murder. There is also an osmosis-like deterrent factor.
Inner city blacks are mostly to blame for the homicide rates in America. They commit seven times more murders than the rest of the demographic. 95% of these murders are committed by blacks against other blacks. This is the reason that a disproportionate number of blacks await execution.
Life without parole is not a viable alternative to the death penalty. In making this case, I will even ignore the murders committed within prison walls of other inmates, and guards, or those murdered during and after escape attempts. The main problem with handing down life sentences (even without parole) is that laws tend to change over time. Hundreds if not thousands of lifers have had their sentences reduced, and have become eligible for parole, or even have been released, in some cases.
According to the US Department of Justice, the average prison sentence served for murder is 5 years and 11 months. Compare this with the average sentence served for third offense OWI - 2 years!
This is an imperfect world. Unfortunately mistakes will be made. Whenever crimes are committed, people will be arrested, tried, and either punished or freed. Thousands of Americans are murdered each year by released and/or paroled criminals. These are the serious flaws in life sentences that abolitionists prefer to the nominal errors that may occur with enforcement. There is no doubt whatsoever that keeping murderers alive is far, far more dangerous to innocents than putting them to death.
We accept the 45,000 person per year death toll in this nation due to car wrecks for our personal convenience, so how can the slim risk of a wrongful execution be so unbearable? We accept risks every day in order to improve the quality of our lives. Electricity, fire, flight, and numerous other activities inevitably lead to unfortunate innocent deaths every year.
You see, one death is a tragedy, but a thousand deaths are statistics.
larry D how are you going to make a turn on your golf swing if you keep heading down to the DQ! You will need a suction cup on the end of your putter to get the ball out of the hole! (When you do finally get the ball in the hole I should say1)
Why does Rick keep calling them "blacks"? Some are very nearly black, but actually very dark brown. Some are very light brown. I think they should be called "brownish". "Brownish on brownish crime, murder and mayhem". I think I like hearing that a lot better.
The reason that people no longer see the death penalty as a deterrent is that we have abandoned the practice of using gibbets. Locating a few on the outskirts of Jefferson would completely eliminate crime there, and also add to the aesthetic ambience of the area.
larry D. - I agree totally. I know for a fact there are three in the basement at Carl's. The last time they were used was back in the 70's, but I am sure they're fine. They are in the front left hand corner. They still have the hooks on top but you will have to buy chain.
Nobody wants to see their loved ones hanging from a gibbet across from the fairgrounds. I'm looking into buying a couple on ebay. I will happily donate them to the city. I can't get into Carl's to check on whether they still have any. They would make some one a neat little tax write-off. Time to hit the DQ before they close.
Preshiate it Big Nasty. If you ever run across me in Greene Co, you will confirm the fact that I will speak my mind, and don't hold much back. As for havin a pair, thats funny right there.
Of course, Jesus was a victim of capital punishment himself. But, as I am sure Jesus was told, "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime". Well...in Hewbrew, of course...and probably not the exact translation. Who knows, maybe they did not talk like that in the Middle East back then. I am pretty sure that, if Jesus had been born in New Jersey, he would have been told that. Yeah, for sure in Jersey.
His Father was and is for it. It was not His preference for His Son. It was the price that needed to be paid to redeem mankind from eternal punishment in Hell.
Gen 9:6 Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.
Bringing religion, particularly Jesus into this thread is appropriate since a majority of the USA are Christians.
I find Diamond Dave's logic regarding "This preceded the 10 Commandments." to be backwards. The New Testament supersedes the Old Testament. New law replaces old law. You don't go back to old law when the new law doesn't suit you. Thou shall not kill! I'm sure Jesus would not support the death even if his Daddy did. There are lots of examples of Jesus changing the old law, for example, the ban on pork.
Diamond Dave said ... "His Father was and is for it. It was not His preference for His Son. It was the price that needed to be paid to redeem mankind from eternal punishment in Hell.
Gen 9:6 Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.
This preceded the 10 Commandments."
With this logic, the Old Testament "precedes" the New Testament. Christians should throw out the New Testament and become Jews.
Crucifixion only works as a deterrent if you let people watch. Back in the day, executions were treated as public spectacles and they were great deterrents. Now, the press is barely allowed in to cover a lethal injection.
If you're wanting a deterrent, open all these forms of punishment up to the public. Crucifixion would be especially useful, as it sometimes lasts for days.
I commented "this preceded the 10 Commandments" with the thinking that God wanted to establish a value for life by requiring a life for a life principle 100's of years before He gave the 10 Commandments. I was thinking chronologically and merely making an observation.
The OT focused more on law, the NT on grace and redemption. I know of nothing in the NT which changes the OT thinking on capitol punishment. From this I believe Jesus and the NT still condone the death penalty.
Good points on OT and NT. Other than it being expressly stated that a law no longer applies or that some laws MAY have been Hebrew governmental and hygienic laws, I don't know. A glance at Google further complicated things for me. Sorry.
Using the hygienic laws for disposing of human waste helped stop the Bubonic Plague of 1350.
Crucifixion usually lasted two or three days. There are many recorded instances of people surviving crucifixion, even after more than a day on the cross or pole. This is interesting, because the crucifixion of Christ was said to have only lasted five or six hours. There are many recorded instances of people being cutdown after that length of time and surviving.
First off, Diamond Dave's logic being backward is not a news flash. Also, we all know that packing up fried chicken, potato salad, and some Captain Morgan to watch a crucifixion or hanging is a great way to spend a pleasant summer afternoon. I don't know who Chemical Ali is, but if they're going to gas him, I'd pack a picnic lunch for that, too. As long as it was in the afternoon. If it was in the evening, I'd probably order delivery.
42 comments:
There are EVIL people in the world. Gary Gilmore killed two people in Utah and was executed by firing squad on January 17, 1977. He never killed again! Charlie Starkweather killed eleven people in Nebraska & Wyoming during a two month spree with his teenage girlfriend Caril Ann Fugate. He was executed on June 25, 1959. He never killed again. Ted Bundy confessed to 30 murders, but estimates range to over 100. He would bludgeon his victims, then strangle them to death. He was executed on January 24, 1989. He never killed again.
Jeffrey Dahmer should have been executed by the state as he murdered 17 men and boys between 1978 and 1991. His murders were gruesome. He was sentenced to 15 life terms totaling 957 years [sure that makes sense ~ as old as Methusela!] While he expressed remorse he wished for his own death. Dahmer was attacked twice in prison once in July 1994. He was severely beaten by a fellow inmate and died on November 28, 1994. He never killed again.
There are four examples of evil people that needed the death sentence. Does execution act as a deterrent? Not in the United States where the justice system moves far too slowly. Many states do not have the death penalty. If the execution would be carried out more swiftly the it would be a deterrent, but not 10-15 years later. What makes some people think that lives of others are not as important as theirs. They never learned the importance of the commandment, "Thou Shall Not Kill."
Then again, should all murderers have to serve life terms in prison? Death somehow seems like an easy way out. If you are alive you have to think about what you have done. But for serial killers keeping them alive to somehow repent or repeat offenses do any good?
At least if they are executed, they will not be released to kill again.
Braxton Hicks
I have to agree with you Braxton. Call it what you want, but I think it is just punishment. Out hands of justice are slow. While I would hate to have an innocent person executed, it takes too long for punishment to be dolled out. Unfortunately the expense to execute is out of this world. Not for the IV cocktail, but just all the appeals process. Funny how hard most of these people will gladly spend their lives in prison with Bubba, but the death chamber makes them fight to stay alive.
While I would agree that all of the criminals in Braxton's post deserved the death sentence, it is really very easy to obtain lists of people that were executed and later exonerated. I can only imagine what their families must feel like. DNA science continues to exonerated convicted criminals regularly.
I am not necessarily against the death penalty, but I think that we need to be extremely careful before using it.
Convicted killers have more than enough time to be exonerated if they have been wrongfully found guilty. The average length of time between a conviction and an execution is more than eleven years, and all are automatically appealed.
Pulling a few red herrings out of the bag as evidence that the system does not work is a poor way to convey your argument.
In the words of the great Orville K. Bass, "Fire up old Sparky."
Look, the reason it's called "capital punishment" is because it's a capital idea. The mere existence of these low-lifes is an insult to the rest of us.
Is society inhumane because we subject fellow human beings to the death penalty? Would I personally be able to flip the switch? Listen, I could do most of 'em with a bucket of water and a bad extension cord.
Also, I don't understand why we have to go to such great lengths to protect the well-being of condemned prisoners. From 24-hour suicide watches to the alcohol swab before the injection - give me a break! The only thing I would afford these people is the opportunity to give us all a break and off themselves.
I'd decorate their cells with every sharp object known to man. Then I'd make their beds with pre-knotted sheets and place a footstool directly under a strong pipe. I'd put 'em all on the 30th floor with open windows and paint a bullseye on the concrete below.
Yup, things would be different with Orville K. Bass, American, in charge.
In 2009 in the USA, 52 people were executed, 24 of them in Texas alone. Since 1976, 1,191 people were executed, 447 of them in Texas. When in Texas, I definitely avoid spitting my gum on the street while I'm jaywalking figuring that qualifies for the death penalty down there.
Some of the cons to the death penalty are: it is a very expensive process (all the appeals, etc.); it is not a very good deterrent to others that haven't killed yet; it is a political hot potato in that many Americans are absolutely against executions; and, golly, sometimes innocent people die at the hands of the state.
I'm against the death penalty because we don't need it. We have a much more prolific way to kill criminals ... the police. I can't find any statistics on it, but I'd guess, across the USA, the police kill many, many times the criminals than does the justice system. Without a death penalty, this country appears to a bit more civilized. For the bloodthirsty out there ... turn on your police scanners!
A friend described the death penalty as society's defense plea.
It protects itself against people who have planned the killing of another human life(s).
So you're putting somebody to death to prevent something he MIGHT do in the future??
He would have been tried and convicted, beyond a reasonable doubt, by a jury of his peers. That is why he'd be given the death penalty.
A fringe benefit to society is his killing no one after his execution.
Anonymous states that since 1976, 1,191 people have been executed in the US. That is an interesting number, if you consider that since that time, nearly 200 inmates have been exonerated while on death row, due to DNA or other evidence.
This means totally exonerated - not just having the charges dropped. For the complete list of these individuals and details about their cases, visit:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org
People who are incarcerated without parole do not kill anyone else, either. The death penalty is about revenge, nothing else.
See avenge. 4. requital. Revenge, reprisal, retribution, vengeance suggest a punishment, or injury inflicted in return for one received. Revenge is the carrying out of a bitter desire to injure another for a wrong done to oneself or to those who are felt to be like oneself: to plot revenge. Reprisal, formerly any act of retaliation, is used specifically in warfare for retaliation upon the enemy for its (usually unlawful) actions: to make a raid in reprisal for one by the enemy. Retribution suggests just or deserved punishment, often without personal motives, for some evil done: a just retribution for wickedness. Vengeance is usually wrathful, vindictive, furious revenge: implacable vengeance.
What you call revenge I would call retribution, based on the above.
As you just said, "revenge is the carrying out of a bitter desire to injure another for a wrong done to those who are felt to be like oneself."
Based on that definition, I can safely stand by my previous statement. The death penalty is all about revenge. Society, and one's surviving family members, in particular, are angry and demand an eye for an eye.
What you like to call retribution, I call revenge. Go to your thesaurus. Under retribution, you will find the word revenge. You are parsing words in an attempt to cast a more acceptable light on this behavior.
The death penalty is about revenge, not retribution. Retribution simply means to distribute punishment. A long jail sentence would certainlt be considered retribution by any definition.
Victims' families are not interested in this. They are seeking revenge. They often demand the guilty party be put to death, and often you will hear them say that, in fact, the death penalty is not punishment enough. They will say that the perpetrator should be made to suffer.
This sounds a lot like revenge to me.
Since being anonymous is the way to go.... I say the old adage "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" If you think nothing of killing me or my family, then you too shall reap what you sew. I say hang em high.
What he said! Hang em high!
Larry D stay away from the Dairy Queen will ya!
The death penalty is not about revenge or retribution. It is a punishment. You think they hung horse thieves and cattle rustlers for revenge? No. Do you think that all the horse's relatives got all worked up and talked to TV reporters and put a lame turban on their head and threatened a big assed lawsuit? No. They just hung the guy because he stole a horse. That is punishment. Guess what? He will never steal a horse again. They did it because they were pissed off the same way that anyone would be if a capital offense had been committed against them or their property. Sure the laws have been changed since then but a capital offense is a capital offense. As always, I will not respond to any comments or personal attacks related to my comments.
I think I'm going to head on down to the DQ.
The death penalty is a harsh but necessary punishment that certainly fits the crimes for which it is practiced. There is simply no argument against it that sways me.
It is often said that capital punishment is not a deterrent. By this I assume it is meant that murders continue to be committed even though the death penalty is in place. Following that line of reasoning, it would appear that we should also close our prisons, as they aren't deterring crime either. Some people continue to avoid wearing their seatbelts, yet we maintain laws providing a fine for such behavior. You see, deterrence is not necessarily the deciding factor in applying law.
By the way, statistics do show that the death penalty may indeed act as a deterrent. Between 1970 and 1980, the number of annual murders in the United States skyrocketed from 9,960 to 23,040 - a 131% increase. During that time, very few executions were taking place. Capital punishment was outlawed from 1972 until 1976. After capital punishment was reinstituted, from 1980 to 1999, the national murder rate dropped 44%. In 2000, it was at its lowest since 1966.
Some analysts believe that between 3 and 18 lives are saved with each execution. That is because most executions are reserved for the especially heinous murders - most others still receive life sentences or plea bargain down to lesser crimes, such as manslaughter or second-degree murder. There is also an osmosis-like deterrent factor.
Inner city blacks are mostly to blame for the homicide rates in America. They commit seven times more murders than the rest of the demographic. 95% of these murders are committed by blacks against other blacks. This is the reason that a disproportionate number of blacks await execution.
Life without parole is not a viable alternative to the death penalty. In making this case, I will even ignore the murders committed within prison walls of other inmates, and guards, or those murdered during and after escape attempts. The main problem with handing down life sentences (even without parole) is that laws tend to change over time. Hundreds if not thousands of lifers have had their sentences reduced, and have become eligible for parole, or even have been released, in some cases.
According to the US Department of Justice, the average prison sentence served for murder is 5 years and 11 months. Compare this with the average sentence served for third offense OWI - 2 years!
This is an imperfect world. Unfortunately mistakes will be made. Whenever crimes are committed, people will be arrested, tried, and either punished or freed. Thousands of Americans are murdered each year by released and/or paroled criminals. These are the serious flaws in life sentences that abolitionists prefer to the nominal errors that may occur with enforcement. There is no doubt whatsoever that keeping murderers alive is far, far more dangerous to innocents than putting them to death.
We accept the 45,000 person per year death toll in this nation due to car wrecks for our personal convenience, so how can the slim risk of a wrongful execution be so unbearable? We accept risks every day in order to improve the quality of our lives. Electricity, fire, flight, and numerous other activities inevitably lead to unfortunate innocent deaths every year.
You see, one death is a tragedy, but a thousand deaths are statistics.
larry D how are you going to make a turn on your golf swing if you keep heading down to the DQ! You will need a suction cup on the end of your putter to get the ball out of the hole! (When you do finally get the ball in the hole I should say1)
Why does Rick keep calling them "blacks"? Some are very nearly black, but actually very dark brown. Some are very light brown. I think they should be called "brownish". "Brownish on brownish crime, murder and mayhem". I think I like hearing that a lot better.
The reason that people no longer see the death penalty as a deterrent is that we have abandoned the practice of using gibbets. Locating a few on the outskirts of Jefferson would completely eliminate crime there, and also add to the aesthetic ambience of the area.
larry D. - I agree totally. I know for a fact there are three in the basement at Carl's. The last time they were used was back in the 70's, but I am sure they're fine. They are in the front left hand corner. They still have the hooks on top but you will have to buy chain.
I cast my vote for Larry D for mayor! Clean up the trash around her Larry D! Invoke some new rules and laws in county of Greene!
Nobody wants to see their loved ones hanging from a gibbet across from the fairgrounds. I'm looking into buying a couple on ebay. I will happily donate them to the city. I can't get into Carl's to check on whether they still have any. They would make some one a neat little tax write-off. Time to hit the DQ before they close.
I'd like to see more posts from Buford T Justice. You can tell he has a pair and isn't afraid to swing 'em like a lead-filled 3 wood.
Preshiate it Big Nasty. If you ever run across me in Greene Co, you will confirm the fact that I will speak my mind, and don't hold much back. As for havin a pair, thats funny right there.
What, nobody asking WWJD on capital punishment?
Of course, Jesus was a victim of capital punishment himself. But, as I am sure Jesus was told, "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime". Well...in Hewbrew, of course...and probably not the exact translation. Who knows, maybe they did not talk like that in the Middle East back then. I am pretty sure that, if Jesus had been born in New Jersey, he would have been told that. Yeah, for sure in Jersey.
His Father was and is for it.
It was not His preference for His Son. It was the price that needed to be paid to redeem mankind from eternal punishment in Hell.
Gen 9:6 Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.
This preceded the 10 Commandments.
DD -
Yes, his Dad was certainly for it.
Hey...read your email!
Wow, that's a nasty turn of events - even for a "capital punishment" thread. What's even more interesting is that Big Nasty wasn't a part of it.
Back to capital punishment, do you think crucifixion would be a good deterrent today?
Bringing religion, particularly Jesus into this thread is appropriate since a majority of the USA are Christians.
I find Diamond Dave's logic regarding "This preceded the 10 Commandments." to be backwards. The New Testament supersedes the Old Testament. New law replaces old law. You don't go back to old law when the new law doesn't suit you. Thou shall not kill! I'm sure Jesus would not support the death even if his Daddy did. There are lots of examples of Jesus changing the old law, for example, the ban on pork.
Diamond Dave said ... "His Father was and is for it.
It was not His preference for His Son. It was the price that needed to be paid to redeem mankind from eternal punishment in Hell.
Gen 9:6 Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.
This preceded the 10 Commandments."
With this logic, the Old Testament "precedes" the New Testament. Christians should throw out the New Testament and become Jews.
How soon can I get circumcised?
Damn, I thought you only had to go to church on Sunday.
Crucifixion only works as a deterrent if you let people watch. Back in the day, executions were treated as public spectacles and they were great deterrents. Now, the press is barely allowed in to cover a lethal injection.
If you're wanting a deterrent, open all these forms of punishment up to the public. Crucifixion would be especially useful, as it sometimes lasts for days.
I commented "this preceded the 10 Commandments" with the thinking that God wanted to establish a value for life by requiring a life for a life principle 100's of years before He gave the 10 Commandments. I was thinking chronologically and merely making an observation.
The OT focused more on law, the NT on grace and redemption. I know of nothing in the NT which changes the OT thinking on capitol punishment. From this I believe Jesus and the NT still condone the death penalty.
Good points on OT and NT. Other than it being expressly stated that a law no longer applies or that some laws MAY have been Hebrew governmental and hygienic laws, I don't know. A glance at Google further complicated things for me. Sorry.
Using the hygienic laws for disposing of human waste helped stop the Bubonic Plague of 1350.
Crucifixion usually lasted two or three days. There are many recorded instances of people surviving crucifixion, even after more than a day on the cross or pole. This is interesting, because the crucifixion of Christ was said to have only lasted five or six hours. There are many recorded instances of people being cutdown after that length of time and surviving.
I think that Chemical Ali should be gassed using the same gas he used, instead of being hung.
Sort of like Hammurabi, I guess.
But maybe the hanging is a public event. If the survivors from the town he nearly wiped out can attend, that would help.
First off, Diamond Dave's logic being backward is not a news flash. Also, we all know that packing up fried chicken, potato salad, and some Captain Morgan to watch a crucifixion or hanging is a great way to spend a pleasant summer afternoon. I don't know who Chemical Ali is, but if they're going to gas him, I'd pack a picnic lunch for that, too. As long as it was in the afternoon. If it was in the evening, I'd probably order delivery.
Chemical Ali is the relative of Saddam Hussein who got picked up during the last Persian Gulf war.
Post a Comment