|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Mar 15, 2002 1:56:48 GMT -5
^^ See, I would agree with that line of thinking if it were not for the fact that the killer has taken a life, and again, who/what gave that killer the right to take that innocent's life? Granted it is a vicious cycle, but I believe that when one person takes another's life, then they automatically forfeit theirs, and for the general safety of society should be "put down".
|
|
|
Post by sunny.side.up on Mar 15, 2002 7:47:54 GMT -5
>>It's true of us Bible belivers, that Jesus teaches us to love no matter what, and we can do that. But there comes a time that when someone commits a huge act of violence, it's apparent that they will not respond to love.<<
Love no matter what, also means love when someone doesn't respond to it, even if someone *really* wouldn't. Killing someone is wrong, no matter what. It's taking a life. Why should we decide when someone gets to die?
>>Only punishment. We can still love them, but they must also face the consequenses of their actions.<<
I don't think killing someone and loving them go together very well. And punishment doesn't have to be death. It can also be prison, and therapy. Of course we shouldn't let murderers walk around free, but we shouldn't kill them either.
>>See, I would agree with that line of thinking if it were not for the fact that the killer has taken a life, and again, who/what gave that killer the right to take that innocent's life?<<
How do you know that whoever the murderer killed was innocent?
>>Granted it is a vicious cycle, but I believe that when one person takes another's life, then they automatically forfeit theirs, and for the general safety of society should be "put down".<<
What about the people who kill the people who got death penalty? It's not exactly the same, but they still take someone's life. And for the general safety of society, they could also be locked up in prison.
~*Esther*~
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on Mar 15, 2002 8:20:19 GMT -5
<<Love no matter what, also means love when someone doesn't respond to it, even if someone *really* wouldn't. Killing someone is wrong, no matter what. It's taking a life. Why should we decide when someone gets to die? >>
Because our laws allow us to. When they kill, they are literally killing themselves.
<<How do you know that whoever the murderer killed was innocent? >>>
It doesnt matter, it in no way vindicates the killing, and around here you are innocent until proven guilty.
<<<What about the people who kill the people who got death penalty? It's not exactly the same, but they still take someone's life. And for the general safety of society, they could also be locked up in prison. >>>
They are just people doing their job. They are law abiding in their profession, it is completely different. Their action is on behalf of the state and society.
|
|
|
Post by sunny.side.up on Mar 15, 2002 11:42:10 GMT -5
>>Because our laws allow us to.<<
That's what this whole discussion is about, if the laws should allow us to do that. It doesn't make it right because it's in the law right now.
>>When they kill, they are literally killing themselves.<<
That just doesn't make sense. I know what you mean, but it still doesn't make sense.
>>It doesnt matter, it in no way vindicates the killing, and around here you are innocent until proven guilty.<<
So you are saying that it doesn't matter if someone's innocent, it still doesn't justify the killing? Then how does it justify killing someone when someone is a murderer? >><<<What about the people who kill the people who got death penalty? It's not exactly the same, but they still take someone's life. And for the general safety of society, they could also be locked up in prison. >>> They are just people doing their job. They are law abiding in their profession, it is completely different. Their action is on behalf of the state and society.<<
Yeah, I guess I should have made my point more clear. I meant that it's still killing someone, I didn't mean that whoever does that job (although personally I would never take a job like that, because it still is killing someone) is really 'guilty'. It's just as wrong as killing anyone else.
~*Esther*~
|
|
|
Post by Toxic-Avenger on Mar 15, 2002 12:53:56 GMT -5
>>Because our laws allow us to.<< That's what this whole discussion is about, if the laws should allow us to do that. It doesn't make it right because it's in the law right now.>>
So what is right? Do we let the criminal go? >>When they kill, they are literally killing themselves.<< That just doesn't make sense. I know what you mean, but it still doesn't make sense. >>
Makes alot of sense. When someone takes a life, they are forfietting their rights to freedom. They are outlaws.
<<Yeah, I guess I should have made my point more clear. I meant that it's still killing someone, I didn't mean that whoever does that job (although personally I would never take a job like that, because it still is killing someone) is really 'guilty'. It's just as wrong as killing anyone else. >>
So what should we do? Rehab doesn't work, the inmates turn on each other. You can't do much else to them as far as punishment, say pile on another few life sentences. So what's to motivate an inmate to straighten up? He kills or gets killed, or worse. Andrea Yates killed all her children, so why should she spend 15 years in jail then set free and all is well? The criminal mind is not wired right. These people do not think about what they did and think, "I'd better not do this again, dang." Alot of murderers are let go then they kill again. Surprise, they go back to jail. <br> So how do we handle mass-murderers, the people that shoot up schools because they didn't get to watch TV that morning or the Jeffery Dahmers and John Wayne Gacy's of the world, who kill like 30 people and bury them in his yard?
|
|
|
Post by Cassiopeia on Mar 15, 2002 13:21:56 GMT -5
>>Yeah, I guess I should have made my point more clear. I meant that it's still killing someone, I didn't mean that whoever does that job (although personally I would never take a job like that, because it still is killing someone) is really 'guilty'. It's just as wrong as killing anyone else. <<
You took the words right out of my mouth. Two wrongs do not make a right.
|
|
|
Post by sunny.side.up on Mar 15, 2002 13:31:38 GMT -5
^ Exactly.
>>So what should we do? Rehab doesn't work, the inmates turn on each other. You can't do much else to them as far as punishment, say pile on another few life sentences. So what's to motivate an inmate to straighten up?<<
I think someone who killed another person or other persons, should go to jail and get therapy. If the therapy doesn't work, they should of course never be let out of jail. But if it does, I think the person should go back home, but... I'm not sure what you call this in English, but it's like when someone goes home but is under constant supervision. You're right that a murderer's mind isn't wired right, but that doesn't mean that they should be killed.
I honestly don't see how anyone could think that we should decide when someone has to die. It's a person. I'm sorry, but I really just don't understand how you can say it's so bad that someone killed someone else, that they should just get killed too.
~*Esther*~
|
|
|
Post by Toxic-Avenger on Mar 15, 2002 14:02:37 GMT -5
<<But if it does, I think the person should go back home, but... I'm not sure what you call this in English, but it's like when someone goes home but is under constant supervision.>> Depends on the situation. I think you mean, "house arrest," where someone is constantly monitored. They can't walk anywhere outside their property. <<You're right that a murderer's mind isn't wired right, but that doesn't mean that they should be killed. >> Depends on the severity, of the crime, and the vicousness with which the person as attacked. Having a jail full of these people wouldn't a great idea either. <<I honestly don't see how anyone could think that we should decide when someone has to die. It's a person. I'm sorry, but I really just don't understand how you can say it's so bad that someone killed someone else, that they should just get killed too. >> Why should they go on living and having a good time while they cut short another person's life? Why should they get a slap on the wrist, spend a few years in jail, then get out to do it again, and so it goes the rest of his life? Soon, he's racked up quite a record. Murderers love to kill, it's what they do. They'll do it no matter how much tolorance we show them. And let's not forget the victims and families.
|
|
|
Post by Semi-Charmed.Life on Mar 16, 2002 2:11:34 GMT -5
I'm against the death penalty for a number of reasons. As many have pointed out, there is always a chance that a mistake will occur. What happens then? Its impossible to bring a person back to life. Does killing a murderer bring back the life of the victims? No one has the right to decide who should live and who should die. And besides, death is the easy way out. You get strapped into a stretcher and injected with poison. You leave the world with out any real pain. Now, whats the punishment in that?
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Mar 16, 2002 2:55:52 GMT -5
No one has the right to decide who should live and who should die.
Like I said before, that killer already decided who should live and who shouldn't when he/she committed the act.
And besides, death is the easy way out. You get strapped into a stretcher and injected with poison. You leave the world with out any real pain. Now, whats the punishment in that?
See, if I had my way (which may be considered cruel and unusual punishment, but that's all in the eye of the beholder), the punishment really would fit the crime. Meaning, if you burn someone to death, then you are locked in a room and burned to death as well. If you knife someone to death, well, then you are knifed to death as well. Pretty plain and simple.
|
|
|
Post by -*- Little Miss Strawberry -*- on Mar 16, 2002 7:01:09 GMT -5
I still disagree with the death penalty. I read this verse this morning, which said:"You must make allowance for each other's faults and forgive the person who offends you. Remember, the Lord forgave you, so you must forgive others." (Colossians 3:13).
I don't particularly wish to bring up any more Bible discussion here... and don't accuse me of bringing that verse up out of context, because I read the whole passage - BUT I just don't see, on a religious perspective, how we as humans - who do wrong ourselves - can see it fit to judge whether a person should live or die. This is a precious life we're talking about. This person - whatever they've done - have a life, and in my opinion, still have the chance to repent. Even if I, or the people affected, can't forgive, I believe God can, and does. If we kill them, then what chance do they have to say sorry and show a little remourse? Sometimes it takes time to show remourse. God is the only "thing" worthy of judging, because he is the only "thing" which hasn't sinned. He is perfect. We are not.
Say you're in a situation and you feel someone has misunderstood you, you wish to be given the chance to explain yourself. Yes, this is a bad example, but it's all I could think of... If it was something that costed your life, you would want the chance to desparately get yourself out of the situation and to save your life. True, I'm sure some murderers don't want their lives, but we should still keep on with them, showing them compassion. I show these people compassion because I believe Jesus showed compassion to people, to people who were hated and rejected in society.
I'm not saying I love them, and I'm not saying I think what they've done is acceptable, I just think we should step back and see whether we're worthy of deciding who should live and who should die.
|
|
|
Post by Cassiopeia on Mar 16, 2002 16:54:48 GMT -5
>>Why should they go on living and having a good time while they cut short another person's life? Why should they get a slap on the wrist, spend a few years in jail, then get out to do it again, and so it goes the rest of his life? <<
How exactly is spending your life in prison considered a good time? I don’t think that murderers should get out in a couple years. I think they should spend their life behind bars (this is referring mainly to 1st degree murderers).
>>Like I said before, that killer already decided who should live and who shouldn't when he/she committed the act. <<
So it automatically makes it right for someone else to decide whether or not the murder should live? The killer may have decided that his victim should die, but he will be punished for it (meaning life in prison).
>>See, if I had my way (which may be considered cruel and unusual punishment, but that's all in the eye of the beholder), the punishment really would fit the crime. Meaning, if you burn someone to death, then you are locked in a room and burned to death as well. If you knife someone to death, well, then you are knifed to death as well. Pretty plain and simple. <<
Yes, but that is considered cruel and unusual punishment, so it’s unconstitutional. Besides, even if they did die that way, it’s still a lot better than rotting away in prison all your life. I’d rather die painfully than have a miserable life.
|
|
|
Post by NaruNarusegawa on Mar 16, 2002 17:28:53 GMT -5
"How exactly is spending your life in prison considered a good time?"
Not speaking from personal experience, but from what I know. Prisoners get 3 meals a day, a place to sleep, hell even medical care, a gym to work out in, a tv... they have it better than a lot of law abiding citizens it sounds like.
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Mar 16, 2002 17:44:46 GMT -5
^^ Also, from what I've heard, many can get college educations while in there. Just what we want, smarter criminals. While I am working my butt off to get enough money scraped together so I can go to a decent college (still live with my parents though, can't afford room and board), all I have to do is commit a crime and lo and behold a new door opens. All I have to keep in mind is to do a crime where I won't get life and I get a free, paid for by the generous tax payer, education. Yes, I am bitter. So it automatically makes it right for someone else to decide whether or not the murder should live? The killer may have decided that his victim should die, but he will be punished for it (meaning life in prison).I don't really care what happens to the piece of scum. I really don't. They could swelter in a non airconditioned jail cell for all I care (I could say worse, but I don't want to frighten any of you even more ). And who is to say that life in prison is punishment for them? Yes, but that is considered cruel and unusual punishment, so it’s unconstitutional. Besides, even if they did die that way, it’s still a lot better than rotting away in prison all your life. I’d rather die painfully than have a miserable life.Again, it is miserable according to you, and I know that you have scruples and morals and values that you abide by. I know because you think it would be punishment enough. I have seen you dicuss and debate. The people on these boards are good, decent people from what I can tell. Whoever can commit a crime such a murder has none of those characteristics and is not a good human being.
|
|
|
Post by 80s Child on Mar 16, 2002 18:54:21 GMT -5
In jail, the inmates are raped almost every night. That to me is punishment.
|
|