|
Post by Caunion on Oct 8, 2008 19:43:05 GMT -5
I don't believe that the death penalty will work at all. One reason why I don't think it'll work is because our justice system, no matter how hard we try to make it perfect, is flawed. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that our lovely justice system could sentence an innocent man on death row and to his death. Secondly, the death penalty will just lead to escalation. Here's a metaphor that explains my point and extends to corporal punishment, a practice I also do not believe in.
My mother strongly believed in corporal punishment, or otherwise scaring her children into behaving well. One crime to which she frequently beat me for was lying. Well, at the lovely age of seven, I understood that I had two choices. One. I could lie horribly like an idiot and get beaten. Or two. I could get better at lying and avoid being beaten. So, I started to get better at lying. If my mum caught me and beat me, I knew I was doing something wrong and tried another way. Eventually, I got to the point where I've become extremely talented at lying. Lying has become second nature to me, where I lie to even close friends. Mostly minor things, but my mother's goal in beating me was to stop me from lying. However she failed at that.
My point with that? The death penalty will eventually fail at its task of protecting people and stopping criminals from murdering. People will just find more inventive ways of killing people and avoid being caught. Why? Because it's an evolutionary impulse inside us. We WANT to live. It's in our best interest, as the living, to keep living. And as humans, we will go along to great heights and bounds to stay alive. If that has to include staying hidden after you've killed someone, then it includes staying hidden. However, if you simply locked them up in prison for life, granted they haven't got much of a life, but they are still living. Also they can contribute to society one way or another, through manual labour. (Side note: In my case, even if my mum had just grounded me instead of hitting, I doubt I would have stopped lying anyway. I was a bit of a black sheep in my family.)
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 8, 2008 20:55:11 GMT -5
Caunion, well written. I still don't agree with you, but I get the point. Corporal punishment is an ineffective tool used by itself, and each situation is different and calls for different responses, whether from a parent or in the laws. But I think you're difference of opinion lies in our different outlooks on the purpose of penalties in the law. I do not believe the purpose is revenge, I do not believe the purpose is punishment. I believe the purpose (much like hell's purpose) is to give each person in society the same set of ground rules, and the same consequences for specific actions that break those ground rules.
As to the eventual failure of the death penalty as a deterrent, if it was applied in every case of misconduct, you would probably be right. But, most people don't have the natural instinct to commit the acts that the death penalty applies to. What it does is keep people, in a moment of bad judgment, from making a choice that will eventually lead to their own death. Does it deter the serial killer who is driven to murder, and thus has a vested interest in also being driven to be cunning about not getting caught? No, probably not, but then again, it is the type of person driven to commit those kinds of acts, regardless of consequence that the death penalty is best suited for. For those folks, there's no hope of fitting back into society without being a risk to the citizens, and therefore, no rehabilitative purpose to incarceration. Their possible contributions are far outweighed by the burden they place on society, and the danger they pose if they ever get loose.
But, if as you say the evolution of society eventually leads to the failure of the deterrence factor for the average person, that's why we have a second amendment in this country as well. Where laws won't deter murderous impulses, a gun in the hands of the intended victim usually will.
|
|
Raivynn
Journeyman
...my winter storm
Posts: 187
|
Post by Raivynn on Oct 9, 2008 8:36:12 GMT -5
Apologies for not being clearer on my reasons for my opinion.
I don't see the death penalty as being a deterrent. There are still people who rape and murder. Yes, other crimes are commited regardess of the laws in place. But that's why we have jails. But as I said in my previous post. Jails need to be tougher, stricter and the inmates given less luxuries. Jail shouldn't be a boarding house.
Maybe I'm naive or too idealistic. But that's how I personally view the subject.
Also just to go to the topic of corporal punishment. I'm also against that. I was never struck as a child and I would never strike my own daughter. She's only 4 years old, even the thought of raising my hand to her, just does not bear thinking about. So...is my happy, intelligent, polite and respectful daughter to be pitied because I chose a different method of disciplining her?
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 9, 2008 17:49:24 GMT -5
Please forgive my very outspoken, and extremely generalized thoughts on corporal punishment here. There is a great raging debate in someplaces here about making spanking illegal. The Department of Family and Children's services in most states are the closest thing America has to true fascism, and I tend to get a little hot under the collar over the entire subject. No, your daughter is not to be pitied, nor are you. If you have found an effective means of discipline that teaches her the things she needs to know, that is your prerogative as a parent. Like I have mentioned elsewhere, I've been a bit testy this week, and part of that has to do with some things going on with my ex-husbands, which in a very convoluted was feeds into this subject.
My personal philosophy on corporal punishment: I have 5 kids. I do not believe in beating them. I would not ever hit them with anything other than my open palm. I have only once ever struck any of them anywhere besides their rear end, and I in truth feel that slapping him at the time was justified, but I still regret having done it. I don't believe a child should ever be spanked in anger. I don't believe they should be spanked repeatedly. And I believe spanking should be used in only one of two situations. Either a, all other forms of discipline have been ineffective, or b, there is an immediate need to get the child's attention to stop them from doing something dangerous to themselves or someone else. Mostly, a spanking should be nothing more than an attention getting reminder that you are the parent and they are the child.
As for jails, I completely agree with you. I think that prisons are a necessary part of the justice system, but they should be a bad place to be, not a vacation spot like they tend to be now. No TV, basic food, no internet, no perks of any kind. They should be a cell, with bars, where you spend most of your time, with a reasonable amount of fresh air for health purposes. Now don't get me wrong, I don't think prisoners should be beaten to a pulp, or subject to abuse by either other prisoner or jailers, but they darn well ought not to be coddled either.
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Oct 14, 2008 19:10:26 GMT -5
Keyodie, Christians believe in Hell and Heaven. Most that I know believe that the death penalty is the consequence paid for earthly activities that go against societies laws. Hell is a consequence paid for going against Gods number one rule, you must accept Christ. Even the most viscous killer can still go to heaven if he repents his sins and accepts Christ. But, when caught killing, the State will help him on his way to heaven. Heh, that just sounds like a fancy way of saying execution. It doesn't change the fact that it's ending the life of someone else. How do you know God wants all of these people dead? I'm sure he didn't want the innocent people on death row killed. And what I've always heard (during my experience with Christianity) is that whenever someone dies, God takes them away for a reason. Doesn't he have the ability to just kill all the criminals we end up condemning to death? (Sorry, a bit off topic, but I'd like to know.) Of course, this is a bit irrelevant if you remember that religion is supposed to be separate from the government. And when is the last time Christians have killed in the name of God? Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Castro, Hitler, and Saddam Hussein (all non Christians) all murdered millions in the name of tyranny. Some misguided Muslims today kill in the name of Alla, but Christians? Well, one example I can think of off the top of my head are the wars for the promised land that have been going on in the Middle East (well, it involves Jews anyway). Another is the Crusades. And the part of the Bible that reads though shall not kill, means murder, and it applies to Jews, as Gods chosen people, and later Christians. You will note that killing in defense of once home and family is not murder in the Bible. I agree, defense of one's home and family isn't murder at all. But why is it that "thou shalt not kill" only applies to Christians/Jews? What about those people who grew up in a very influential environment that taught another language? What about people who have never heard of God? Is it okay to kill them? I also find it strange that God kills so many people in the Bible, even after you take out the stuff before the Ten Commandments. Hmmm I'm starting to think maybe we should create another thread. This debate is straying towards religion and away from capital punishment. Partly my fault, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Bubba's Dad on Nov 2, 2008 15:10:31 GMT -5
OK, Keyodie, I really can not tell if you are making a serious response to my post or if you are just having fun. I will answer as if you are serious.
in this country, religion is kept separate from our government, my earlier posts were just in reponse to questions. As far as your response to when is the last time Christians killed in the name of God, it about made me laugh. I am not trying to offend you but really? The Crusades? You compare the political-religious wars of of the middle ages to the mass murder of Pol pot, and Hitler of the 20th Century? And, as far as the Holy land goes, Jews today are not fighting for land or political power, or to spread their religion, but simply to live. And perhaps one could say that the Crusaders of the Middle Ages were fighting and killing in the name of their god, you know even when kicking the Muslims out of that traditional holy place, SPAIN. Oh wait, how did the Muslims get to Spain? Perhaps the Muslims had a little crusade of their own going on for conquest too? Politically incorrect.
And the reason that the Bible, all of it, applies to just Christians is because it is the Christian Bible. it applies to Christians, thus, killing in the form of murder is wrong for Christians to do regardless of the religion of the victim. Thus, your question makes little sense. Now, I am talking religious convictions here, as that was how your question was meant. As for society, Murder is wrong regardless of the religion of the murderer or victim.
Any how, the main disconnect in this argument comes from the fact that many seem to want to use the idea of religious hypocrisy to undermine social laws. This hypocrisy can only be used by those out side of the Christian faith, because those who are Christians tend to understand the fact that no hypocrisy exists. It is interesting that those who constantly call upon the separation of church and state want Christians to use their faith to denounce social laws when it is convenient for the argument.
Example:
A Christian should not use religion as grounds for being against the social law of legal abortion do to the separation of church and state. Keep your rosary out of my ovaries.
A Christian must defend their faith if they are to defend their positive view of the social laws confirming capital punishment.
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Nov 2, 2008 19:11:09 GMT -5
in this country, religion is kept separate from our government, my earlier posts were just in reponse to questions. True true. As far as your response to when is the last time Christians killed in the name of God, it about made me laugh. I am not trying to offend you but really? The Crusades? You compare the political-religious wars of of the middle ages to the mass murder of Pol pot, and Hitler of the 20th Century? And, as far as the Holy land goes, Jews today are not fighting for land or political power, or to spread their religion, but simply to live. And perhaps one could say that the Crusaders of the Middle Ages were fighting and killing in the name of their god, you know even when kicking the Muslims out of that traditional holy place, SPAIN. Oh wait, how did the Muslims get to Spain? Perhaps the Muslims had a little crusade of their own going on for conquest too? Politically incorrect. Glad I gave you a good laugh. Though, I didn't say anywhere in my post that I was comparing anything to anything. You asked when Christians have killed in the name of God, and I answered. Simple as that. I also never mentioned Muslims in my post. Of course they have killed in the name of Allah, I do not deny that. Your last few sentences didn't really go against the idea that Christians killed in the name of God, only that the people they killed also killed in the name of God. I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. I don't have much else to say about the Crusades because I don't know much about it, but I will be learning about it later. Maybe I'll have something to say then. But from what I've heard, Christians were fighting in the name of God during the Crusades. My history teacher, a very conservative Christian, said something similar. And the reason that the Bible, all of it, applies to just Christians is because it is the Christian Bible. it applies to Christians, thus, killing in the form of murder is wrong for Christians to do regardless of the religion of the victim. Thus, your question makes little sense. Now, I am talking religious convictions here, as that was how your question was meant. As for society, Murder is wrong regardless of the religion of the murderer or victim. I said that it seems as if "thou shalt not kill" only applies to Christians in that it is wrong to kill Christians, but not people of other religions. Part of what I said was: "What about people who have never heard of God? Is it okay to kill them?" Sorry if that wasn't clear enough. Any how, the main disconnect in this argument comes from the fact that many seem to want to use the idea of religious hypocrisy to undermine social laws. This hypocrisy can only be used by those out side of the Christian faith, because those who are Christians tend to understand the fact that no hypocrisy exists. It is interesting that those who constantly call upon the separation of church and state want Christians to use their faith to denounce social laws when it is convenient for the argument. This is not the case. We are responding to the opinion that some people have in which capital punishment is good BECAUSE of their religious faith. None of us are saying "Capital punishment should be illegal because Christians say it's okay." That would be illogical, to say the least.
|
|