Posted: 9/29/2006 10:06:45 AM EDT
| Our teacher is against it because he says its immoral and against our relgion (catholic). I stumped him when I said it was human instinct to fell the need to kill, so how could it be immoral. What does the hive mind think? The class was divided about evenly on the topic. |
Sounds like a poor teacher. 1. Killing isn't immoral, it all depends on circumstances. (not his view) 2. Christianity is about overcoming your 'human' limitations, including your 'nature'. (should have been his response to you.) |
It's also, some would argue, human instinct for a man to sleep with as many woman as possible. Doesn't make it moral. He might also argue that it is instinct to kill to survive, say for food or personal protection. Neither applies to the death penalty and so it's not about an instinct to kill but a desire for revenge, or an apologist would call it justice. Regardless of what you call it, it is not an instinct. It is carefully premeditated. There is nothing natural about the death penalty, just as there is nothing natural about our legal system. That is not a judgment on the capitol punishment, but more a criticism of you're teacher, he should have easily refuted you're argument. -Local |
Who said he was Liberal? Sounded like he was a teacher at a Catholic school. Catholicism is pretty clearly against anything that ends human life, and doesn't take a political side on it. Everything from Condoms to removing feeding tubes is against their view, regardless of which party they vote for. The pope is against it, would you consider him a LIEberal (what ever the fuck that means)? Besides, I've noticed that there is little correlation between a persons political views and his on the death penalty. I'm not sure exactly what it is that causes a person to sway one way or the other on this issue. It almost seems random. -Local |
| I think for any crime that require encarseration, we should just exile the person. But first we would have to tighten up imigration to make that work. I think a policy like that would kinda make everyone happy, sieze the persons property and sell it to make money for the city/county then kick them out of the country... |
Grammar Nazi correction. 
|
|
I would absolutely LOVE to see the concept of exile come to the USA for people like Ted Kennedy and George Soros, but murderers need not be unleashed upon the population of another nation. Kill them or put them in prison forever. I don't care which. I guess go with whatever is cheaper for the State. I think many supporters of the death penalty revel in the suffering of the executed, and this is the wrong reason. Vengance is not very Christ-like. We must remember not to give in to such wickedry, and we must also keep the State from embracing it. This is why i don't support raping rapists, choking stranglers, or shooting gunmen. Dead is dead, and the method gives the State no marginal utility. Once a killer is executed, he is square with the State. Therefore, it's logical that the quickest, most efficient, and most humane manner of execution should be selected. Fear from standing on the gallows and pain from tortures do not pay for a crime any more than rocks can pay for groceries. What's gained there is vengance, and vengance is wicked. Supporting capital punishment for the purposes of paying for a crime is righteous, but I think supporting it for the enjoyment of the public and victims is not. The death penalty should exist because it is good, not because it feels good. Given the choice, I would be executed rather than live in prison forever. I think half would agree with me and half would not, so the life in prison/death penalty debate is a classic case of "get both". |
In the name of Catholicism, tens of thousand have been killed. The faith is built on the bones of the dead, as far as I am concerned. |
Bullshit, that is impossible. The worst teachers are those that sit and listen to a political discussion, or start one themselves, without injecting any opinion. Basing your grade on political bias? Wrong. Explaining reasons why either or any point could be right/wrong in an arguement? Good, sound educational principles. I'm paying to have an expert in the class. I expect him/her to act that way. |
Moot, not mute. Legislation should never be based on religion. Most of the planet does not believe in giving the government the power to execute citizens. The Arab world does, of course, but most of the civilized world does not. I personally support the death penalty and I think it should be used for rapists and repeat felony offenders that will spend life in prison anyway, despite its cost. I believe that the only valid arguement against the death penalty is that it gives the government too much power. My personal opinion is that in a republic, where the people control the majority of the officials of government, this is a non issue, however, I can see why people feel this way, expecially in the modern era of the government eroding at our rights on a grand scale. |
|
Tell him that the Bible says "thou shalt not murder," but not "thou shalt not kill." it's translated that way, but it's incorrect. The bible also says that "if a thief is found entering a house, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no blood spilled for him." Furthermore, God often helped armies kill their enemies. After all this, how can the bible be against the death penalty? Then again, when have the Catholics ever followed the bible?  I'm no biblical scholar, so I only have general comments. |
Sorry, the Spelling/Grammar Nazi possessed me for a minute. 
|
|
"Render unto Ceasar, that which is Ceasar's. Render unto God, that wich is God's." I know this usually refers to taxes, but it also fits for criminal punishment. When the argument of "the death penalty doesn't deter crime" comes up, remind them that the death penalty deter's the hell out of the guy being executed. |
While the death penalty does give the state the power to kill, it requires a jury of ones own peers, 12 people, to vote to put one to death. It is still a power that resides with the people. |
That is one of the many reasons I support the death penalty. Also, I believe making the sentencing phase seperate from the trial to be sound legal practice. IMO, as long as jury nullification exists, the state cannot abuse their power to try and sentence criminals. |
|
Scenario: A man commits murder and is sentenced to life in prison. While in prison, the offender kills __________ (CO, another inmate--your choice). If the offender had been executed, a life would have been saved. Instead, the offender is sentenced to another life term and the cycle could potentially continue. The death penalty isn't looking so immoral now, is it?
|
|
Hm. As I understand the 10 Commandments, one of the important ones was "Thou shall not murder" Not kill, but MURDER. As I understand it, that particular phrase has been re-intrepreted, mis-intrepreted, etc for millenia. If killing was against the Bible, then every breath we take, which kills/smothers/suffocates millions of living single-cell organisms, would be enough to ensure we all go to hell. Not to mention the Bible makes specific mention of death being the penalty for certain things...such death not to be considered murder, but justice. Simply my understanding, I could be completly wrong. |
Yes, what about all the stonings? what about the guy that took stuff and hid it in his tent (Achan i belive) Him and his family was stoned to death. You know why? because God told them not to, and he did. Now, since jesus died for our sins, techinally this would not warrant the death penalty anymore, BUT i believe that there ARE crimes which deserve the death penalty for them, like murder, Child Molestation (unfourtunatly, i don't think that will go...) and a few others, but there SHOULD be a death penalty. |
Then the people on the jury have failed. Legally, no innocent person has ever been executed. They have had a trial, a jury of their peers, appeals, etc. |
+1 Its called human nature, the only thing certain in life is the ability of people to make mistakes. |
|
Here is the King James Version of it: (Moses was given these Commandments), among them is: Exodus 20:13: Thou shalt not kill. God also spelled it out for Moses, among them is: Exodus 21:13: And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee. and Exodus 21:14: But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die. I take this to mean "men" not God, will take him from God's altar, and kill him. What the Lord means is if you murder with premeditation you should die. If you defend yourself, he will make you another place to flee. For those that believe, I hope this helps. |
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.