-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is the death penalty right?
- Thread starter shesha
- Start date
No*s
Captain Obvious
I chose "don't know," but I take a very strong "We generally shoudln't do it" stance. When you kill someone, you are removing all chances for them to change. It has been demonstrated to be clumsy and inefficient (look at all the cases turned over).
While I don't outright condemn it, I would say anyone who says "yes" should be willing to throw the switch and also be the one to tell the person's family if it's turned over "I chose to kill your boy, I threw the switch, and I made a mistake." If they can't do that, they have no business saying "yes."
While I don't outright condemn it, I would say anyone who says "yes" should be willing to throw the switch and also be the one to tell the person's family if it's turned over "I chose to kill your boy, I threw the switch, and I made a mistake." If they can't do that, they have no business saying "yes."
retrorich
SUPER NOT-A-MOD
I am in favor of the death sentence in cases of premeditated murder, free of mitigating or extenuating circumstances, in which a guilty verdict is supported by overwhelming evidence. I would be especially in favor of the death sentence if the victim were a child.
Furthermore, doesn't the judge make the final decision on punishment by death rather than the jury?
If I were on a jury that convicted a person and voted for the death penalty, I would be willing to "pull the switch." I would see no obligation to speak to the person's family--and certainly no need to say "I made a mistake." If I thought that executing a convicted murderer was a mistake, I would not vote in favor of execution.No*s said:While I don't outright condemn it, I would say anyone who says "yes" should be willing to throw the switch and also be the one to tell the person's family if it's turned over "I chose to kill your boy, I threw the switch, and I made a mistake." If they can't do that, they have no business saying "yes."
Furthermore, doesn't the judge make the final decision on punishment by death rather than the jury?
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
I do not support the death penalty.
Lycan
Preternatural
I full on believe in the death penalty - I also think whatever the convicted did to their victim is how they should die. I also feel that appeals should be limited to one and if that appeal is denied, the sentence should be carried out swiftly instead of supporting these inmates for years.
The death penalty is right if you believe that it is necessary to protect the lives of other innocent people.
The death penalty is wrong if you believe that protecting all life is correct.
These are 2 different beliefs, but both sides are following the moral law, that life should be protected.
The death penalty is wrong if you believe that protecting all life is correct.
These are 2 different beliefs, but both sides are following the moral law, that life should be protected.
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
I suppose my opposition to the death penalty is because I lack the need for revenge. When someone does something that is against what society deems correct, I ask myself, what would the Buddha do? What would Jesus do? I don't believe either of these teachers would advocate the taking of life as punishment for any reason. Neither man ever called for revenge in their teachings. So, I would fall under Geoman's statement The death penalty is wrong if you believe that protecting all life is correct because I do not believe you have to take life in order to protect life.
jewscout
Religious Zionist
I said yes because, frankly, i think there are some people out there who deserve something worse than death, but since cruel and unusual is still prohibited in the land i would have to go w/ the death penalty....cold blooded murderers, rapists, child molestors...i say string 'em up!No*s said:...I would say anyone who says "yes" should be willing to throw the switch and also be the one to tell the person's family if it's turned over "I chose to kill your boy, I threw the switch, and I made a mistake." If they can't do that, they have no business saying "yes."
Master Vigil
Well-Known Member
I don't agree with the death penalty, for some reason I feel its letting them off easy. I think life in prison is worse. But then again, some prisons are nicer than some houses. So I don't know, I guess I'm just against killing a person because he "deserves it."
No*s
Captain Obvious
retrorich said:
What my comment means, is that if you made a mistake, if it comes out the person wasn't guilty, would you be willing to go to their family and say, "I'm sorry, we found out your son didn't do it. I said he was guilty, and I pulled the switch. We know now, though, that so-and-so did it, though."
Melody
Well-Known Member
And for the Christian who advocates capital punishment....would this then make you guilty of murder in the eyes of God since you've killed an innocent?No*s said:
The one and only jury trial I was ever called for was a murder trial. They were going for the death penalty so every potential juror was asked if they could find the person guilty knowing this. I couldn't and so they excused me. I haven't changed my position on this in the last 20 years.
No*s
Captain Obvious
Melody said:
I probably couldn't. I couldn't meet my own standard, even though I don't outright condemn the death penalty. I simply couldn't execute another human being.
As for the guilty of murder thing, I don't think it's that simple. Whether we would justly be called "guilty" or not, it will result in the same psychological damage to the person who made the call. It will have the same consequences in the spirit, and thus, is sin, even if unintentional. I woudln't call it murder, but it would cause all the damage of sin. I know I couldn't stand myself after that.
We have real life situations that causes us to not have to decide between right and wrong, but wrong and "less wrong".
Is it right to kill someone who is about to kill 10 innocent people?
In this situation, even though you believe that "all killing is wrong", real life is causing you to make a real life decision. Do I want 1 person to die, or 10?
Wouldn't we all chose to "kill 1", because it protects the most life? But the right worldly decision is still wrong with God, because murder is a sin. That's why we need to ask for forgiveness.
Is it right to kill someone who is about to kill 10 innocent people?
In this situation, even though you believe that "all killing is wrong", real life is causing you to make a real life decision. Do I want 1 person to die, or 10?
Wouldn't we all chose to "kill 1", because it protects the most life? But the right worldly decision is still wrong with God, because murder is a sin. That's why we need to ask for forgiveness.
Ah, Master Vigil, I agree with you; what is more, prisons are rapidly becoming short of space. What about enforced community service ? - for my part, I'd like to think that, had Hitler been captured alive, he could have been made to serve the jewish population for the rest of his life. To me, that would be far better than a quick death, penile servitude in reasonable comfort for the rest of his life.Master Vigil said:
robtex
Veteran Member
shesha said:
That is a vey black and white question to a very complexed question. I am assuming you mean in the states since you reside in Georgia. A few things that would need to be considered before looking at this are
* nature of the crime
* context of the conviction
* context of the system that bestowed the conviction
* circumstances surrounding the crime
* rationale or reason for the crime (or as much of it as could be assessed)
* other alternatives to the death penatly for the same conviction
As far as the nature of the crime I would submit that almost everyone would desire a range of acceptable penatlies for each type or crime committed. For instance, murder is a diverse crime that is umbrellaed under a single, but accurate definition.
Under murder their are crimes of passion, serial killings, political killings, self defense killings ect ect and each could be argued one way or the other and I would contend that most of society would not lump them all together.
On the context of the conviction many murder cases (recently the famous Scott Peterson murder trial) are done on circumstantial evidence and as such convition is a matter of probablity with assurity being a luxary that cannot be afforded in those cases. Some are more solid and probabe some are less. Some have reliable witness some do not. It is all across the board from absolute assurity to beyond a reasonable doubt which is the minuium amount of guilt needed to secure a felony conviction.
Context of the system that bestowed the conviction: This is an area few know about outside the crimminal justice system unless they take time to look into it. the reality is that the CJ system is still a political orgainzation by design and DA's are graded and advanced in part on their preformance as well as law enforcement officers and supporting staff. Knowing this there has been a small but distinct trend for false testimony, pressure tatitcs and other undesriable practices. In Chicago years ago police were torturing confessions out of suspects leading to a mortitoruim of that states death penalty. In Texas there was some fruitcake form San Antonio who is now serving time for be an expert witness on crimminal profiles and making stuff up for the prosecution in capital murder cases. While the practices are few and far between in evaulating the death penatly divorcing them from the total viablity of the death penatly seems to be a short changing of the decision on this issue.
Circumstances surrounding the crime: Within the crime is a context and that context is a consideration for the penatly within a set penatly range. Crimes of passion are less likey today to be on death row than premediated crimes and multiple victims have more likely hold in a capital case than single ones do. At some point when addressing the death penatly the context or a framework for contexts that coud qualify for a capital case need to be aggreeed upon.
Reason for the crime: If one can be assessed by a jury or judge it is a factor. A jealous husband killing his wife's lover in bed is a differnt consideration than a man stalking a woman for sexual pleasure derived from killing her. The reasons don't seem equal to me and some framework (which now exists currently in the CJ stystem) needs to be isolated and applied when assessing the validity of capital punishment.
Alternatives: No decision can be unbiasly rendered with out looking at alternatives and in the case of the capital punishment the alternative is life incarceratation. Within the context of the two one must look at accomodations for each in terms of price tag, convict, family of victim and society as a whole.
I throw all this out because to look at the juggernaut that is capital punishment each should be isolated and assessed and than correlating the pieces of the puzzle fit back together to get a workable piece on the issue.
The death penatly is anything but black and white and as such is a time consuming and complexed puzzle to navigate.