The Death Penalty...Is it right?

[SubSerpent]

This was is a bit brutal wouldn't you say? I am not condoning the acts that inmate(s) have done to get themselves put there, but I think that torturing someone to death is a bit grizzly. I vote give em the needle in future (it gets the job done just as well and it is a lot more humane). Actually, I would perfer to abolish the death penalty altogether. I think it is wrong of the government to be able to commit pre-meditated murder under the power of State. What ever happened to the power of God and "Thou shall not Kill? What makes a State think that they are more powerful and Just than the Almighty?


http://www.crimemagazine.com/davis1.htm

Warning: (view the pictures at your own risk)
Pictures at the bottom of the site are a bit violent!

[Dowly]

If man kills another man, IMO he should be punished with death. "Thou shall not Kill", tell that to the murderers. If someone slowly and painfully kills someone, why the murderers death should be humane?

Just my 2 cents.

[SubSerpent]

If man kills another man, IMO he should be punished with death. "Thou shall not Kill", tell that to the murderers. If someone slowly and painfully kills someone, why the murderers death should be humane?

Just my 2 cents.

That opinion makes State government look no better than the murderers IMO. Only difference is that the State and people involved in the execution of the murderer don't have to pay the same price the murderer did.

I think life behind bars is punishment enough. Let God make the judgements on the guilty. There is no need to execute anyone. People claim it makes room in the prison system. That's BS. In the US a person gets executed like once in a blue moon. Why not release the petty criminals and have them show up to a parole officer once a week. This country is cracking down more and more on small crimes and that is what is flooding the prison system. I read in a news article that a guy in Cali has to spend the rest of his life behind bars with no chance of parole for stealing a few kids movies from a store. He had been found guilty for 2 earlier small petty crimes prior to his latest (3) crime. Cali has the new 3 strikes and your out rule on ALL crime. All 3 of this man's crimes were extremely petty but in Cali that does not matter and he will spend the rest of his life behind bars. Certainly there are worse offenders out there that could be taking his place.

[kiwi_2005]

A few crims in NZ should be put to death without a doubt, their has been some gruesome crimes happening over the past yrs where the opposition has been pushing for the Death penalty yet it would never happen here. I remeber one where a guy walked into a pizza shop and shot dead the teller then went to two other shops and shot them dead. First he asked them to hand over the money in the till then told them to knell down and then shot them in the back of the head? He got his money why shoot them??? He's wearing a mask so they can't identify him so what is the point of shooting them??? The pizza guy was only 16yrs old just begining his life and probably his first job. Shot dead over $200.

When the police arrested him they should of put a bullet in the back of his head.

[waste gate]

So what should be done with this fella?
Only two minor arrests. He is a butcher both literally and figuratively. He took the life of a human being, then carved her up nice and neat.



MINEOLA, New York — A man was jailed without bail Saturday, one day after he was arrested on charges he dismembered his neighbor and drove around with her severed head in the trunk of his car.

Evan Marshall, 31, of Glen Cove, New York, was arraigned on second-degree murder in the brutal slaying of Denice Fox at her home inside an exclusive gated community in Glen Cove. Police said Marshall kept the victim's body parts inside several trash bins in the basement of his home — except for the head, which was in his 1990 Toyota.
The 57-year-old Fox was a retired school teacher, and authorities offered no motive for Thursday's gruesome slaying. Marshall had no violent criminal history, with arrests only for petit larceny and driving while intoxicated, authorities said.
He was arrested Friday after driving his car back to his home, where police were waiting. Two large carving knives were recovered at the crime scene, police said.

On Thursday, Fox's daughter called Glen Cove police after discovering her mother was missing and finding blood in the vestibule of her mother's home. Police canvassing the neighborhood were allowed into the home where Marshall lived with his mother, and soon made their grisly discovery. Marshall also was suspected of using his car to run down a woman walking on a sidewalk about a 1 mile away from the Fox home on Thursday morning. The unidentified woman was hospitalized, but her injuries were not life-threatening.


On another note, perhaps the death penalty would be more justly applied if it was administered no more than two years after the crime. No more sitting on death row for ten plus years.

[SubSerpent]

A few crims in NZ should be put to death without a doubt, their has been some gruesome crimes happening over the past yrs where the opposition has been pushing for the Death penalty yet it would never happen here. I remeber one where a guy walked into a pizza shop and shot dead the teller then went to two other shops and shot them dead. First he asked them to hand over the money in the till then told them to knell down and then shot them in the back of the head? He got his money why shoot them??? He's wearing a mask so they can't identify him so what is the point of shooting them??? The pizza guy was only 16yrs old just begining his life and probably his first job. Shot dead over $200.

When the police arrested him they should of put a bullet in the back of his head.


It is a shame that there are bad people in this world that have no remorse for life. But shouldn't we, as civilized people, show some self control to our emotions? I feel sorry for the victims and their families, but killing off a convicted person is not the way of the Lord. Has the Lord come down and told us "Thou shall NOT kill - Unless its a convicted felon"? I just recall God stating the first part of that statement. It's a very cold and cruel punishment to strap a man into a chair and melt his brain so that it comes out his nose and mouth. That's about the same as putting someone in a microwave. It's just sick and disturbing!

[Sailor Steve]

So how do you feel about war? If your government orders you to go into combat, should you refuse on the grounds that God commands you not to kill, ever? That's what the Quakers believe, and they get special exemptions from combat duty, meaning that if drafted they only have to serve in non-combat roles.

Personally, I feel that if a person is guilty of certain crimes he has forfeited the basic civil rights that govern the rest of us. The main purpose of Captital Punishment to me is that using the state to do it lowers the possibility of vedettas.

[fredbass]

My opinion really isn't based on emotion, but rather on what is an appropriate punishment for such a crime.

If someone has committed the crime of murder, then that person should receive the appropriate penalty of death. An eye for an eye I say, regardless of whether the penalty deters those in the future who consider such crime.

[kiwi_2005]

A few crims in NZ should be put to death without a doubt, their has been some gruesome crimes happening over the past yrs where the opposition has been pushing for the Death penalty yet it would never happen here. I remeber one where a guy walked into a pizza shop and shot dead the teller then went to two other shops and shot them dead. First he asked them to hand over the money in the till then told them to knell down and then shot them in the back of the head? He got his money why shoot them??? He's wearing a mask so they can't identify him so what is the point of shooting them??? The pizza guy was only 16yrs old just begining his life and probably his first job. Shot dead over $200.

When the police arrested him they should of put a bullet in the back of his head.

It is a shame that there are bad people in this world that have no remorse for life. But shouldn't we, as civilized people, show some self control to our emotions? I feel sorry for the victims and their families, but killing off a convicted person is not the way of the Lord. Has the Lord come down and told us "Thou shall NOT kill - Unless its a convicted felon"? I just recall God stating the first part of that statement. It's a very cold and cruel punishment to strap a man into a chair and melt his brain so that it comes out his nose and mouth. That's about the same as putting someone in a microwave. It's just sick and disturbing!

Yeah i see your point, yet in the old testament God says:
Exodus Chapter 21: verse 23-25.
23) But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life.
24)"Eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
25) Burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

But christains will argue my statement saying thats the old testament, its the new testament we should go by, as Jesus came and taught forgiveness. - if a man strikes you on the left cheek turn the other cheek so he can strike you on the right cheek (forgot the full words but something like that.) Im not saying Jesus is wrong either. In fact to follow Jesus woud be much harder than the old testament. And what about Theres a time for war and a time for peace. Isn't God really saying theres a time to go out and kill and a time not to kill?

Also our last crim put to death was in 1957 he was hanged, then the death penalty was abolished. If we brought back the death penalty it would be the hanging gallows - no frying the brain treatment. Which i think hanging would be a bit moreless gruesome?:hmm:

[SubSerpent]

So how do you feel about war? If your government orders you to go into combat, should you refuse on the grounds that God commands you not to kill, ever? That's what the Quakers believe, and they get special exemptions from combat duty, meaning that if drafted they only have to serve in non-combat roles.

Personally, I feel that if a person is guilty of certain crimes he has forfeited the basic civil rights that govern the rest of us. The main purpose of Captital Punishment to me is that using the state to do it lowers the possibility of vedettas.

Government is not right to go to war. War should not happen. War is the result of a weak nation that does not have the mental capacity to search for a peaceful resolution to a situation and decides to use muscle and brawn to do it's talking. Just the same way a bully in school would do.

[waste gate]

War is the result of a weak nation that does not have the mental capacity to search for a peaceful resolution

There's that great intellegence.

[SubSerpent]

War is the result of a weak nation that does not have the mental capacity to search for a peaceful resolution

There's that great intellegence.

I'm wrong to want to go about things in a peaceful manner? Are you serious?

[fredbass]

Government is not right to go to war. War should not happen. War is the result of a weak nation that does not have the mental capacity to search for a peaceful resolution to a situation and decides to use muscle and brawn to do it's talking. Just the same way a bully in school would do.

If it weren't for wars, America would probably still be under colonial rule.:know:


Wait a second, what's this got to do with the Death Penalty? hmmm, Oh, I see, kill em all I say. :lol:

[waste gate]

Your mixing your topics a bit. I made no statement regarding world peace, or school yard peace. My statement addressed intellegance and when all the talk in the world will not end conflict and can only encourage more violence.

As evidence I give you WWII. The powers talked Hitler and all it got them was a world war, and genocide. More recently any UN resolution you'd care to mention, save Korea. Words mean very little to authoritarian governments bent on power.

[August]

Government is not right to go to war. War should not happen. War is the result of a weak nation that does not have the mental capacity to search for a peaceful resolution to a situation and decides to use muscle and brawn to do it's talking. Just the same way a bully in school would do.

"War should not happen". That's a nice sentiment but completely unrealistic because it ignores the entire span of human history.

There are worse things than war, believe it or not. Standing by doing nothing while your neighbors are killed and enslaved for example. Sometimes war now is better than war later. Should France and Britian have refrained from declaring war against Germany in response to it's invasion of Poland? Maybe they could have escaped being attacked themselves, at least for awhile. But that would just have given Germany a few more years with which to prepare its war machine.

[SubSerpent]

How to answer this? This is a tough corner that you all have put me in, and goes against my total belief in "Thou shall not kill" period. However, I see the point that you all are getting at with war. God knows it's gonna happen. That's because he knows we can't get along. That is why an American thinks he is greater than an Englishman, or why a whiteman thinks he is better than a blackman, etc etc. We are all different, and yes world politics is a lot like grade school politics. When one kid doesn't like the shirt another one is wearing and punches him in the nose, or when two girls fight one another for the conquest of trying to win the attention of 1 boy. War should not happen, period. We are all too selfish, greedy, and undeserving of God's love and good grace. No wonder why we are here! Life is a test of morales. If we can't even get this right we will be doomed by our own hands, not his.

BUT


This thread is not about war however. It's about the Death Penalty.

[August]

"Thou shalt not Kill" is a mistranslation. It should read "Thou shalt not Murder".

[SubSerpent]

"Thou shalt not Kill" is a mistranslation. It should read "Thou shalt not Murder".


I don't know how you mistranslate the Lords words? "Thou shall not kill" is written plain as day. Are you saying the Lord somehow made a mistake and doesn't know what he said?

[August]

"Thou shalt not Kill" is a mistranslation. It should read "Thou shalt not Murder".

I don't know how you mistranslate the Lords words? "Thou shall not kill" is written plain as day. Are you saying the Lord somehow made a mistake and doesn't know what he said?

No. Are you saying the Lord wrote the 10 commandments in modern English?

[Skybird]

Death as a penalty is a contradiction in itself, because a penalty by definition is a sanction by which you want to change the reaction pattern of a subject. where you talk about death as a penalty, you are not talking about justice, but you are talking about revenge, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth: the correction of a bilance in fate. That has nothing to do with penalty. Death "penalty's value as a deterrant obviously also is extremely low.

Death in legislative context can only be a preventive ("vorbeugend") measure, to hinder the drug baron or Godfather to control his cartel from within prison, for example. I would only reserve it for religiously or politically motivated terrorists, big fishes in arms smuggling, drug smuggling, girl smuggling, state corruption, and comparing things where you must grant a significant probability that a prison sentence will not prevent them to continue with their evil doing, or after they had been released again. So, for me death "penalty" is ruled out for example for the family drama that ended with murder.

I do not claim to have given the complete definition for when killing someone by law is acceptable, and when not, but you got my general idea.

[waste gate]

It's also a deterence because the accused, condemmed will never do it again.

[SubSerpent]

"Thou shalt not Kill" is a mistranslation. It should read "Thou shalt not Murder".

I don't know how you mistranslate the Lords words? "Thou shall not kill" is written plain as day. Are you saying the Lord somehow made a mistake and doesn't know what he said?

No. Are you saying the Lord wrote the 10 commandments in modern English?

It has been updated to modern English for us to understand. Killing is Killing. It is wrong in every aspect.

[waste gate]

It has been updated to modern English for us to understand.


I'll leave this to someone else to explain the transliteral difference between Anciet Greek, Latin, Old English, Middle English and Modern English. Not to mention errors committed by scribes and jealots.

[Skybird]

It's also a deterence because the accused, condemmed will never do it again.

No, because the argument is that death penalty is a deterrence - for others than the the execution candidate. General crime statistics cannot support this thesis, nor the study of individual cases. In fact, the practicing of death penalties does not seem to have any significant effect on the number of crimes being committed at all.

[SubSerpent]

It's also a deterence because the accused, condemmed will never do it again.

No, because the argument is that death penalty is a deterrence - for others than the the execution candidate. General crime statistics cannot support this thesis, nor the study of individual cases. In fact, the practicing of death penalties does not seem to have any significant effect on the number of crimes being committed at all.


Agreed. It's just a cold cruel way for revenge.

[Sailor Steve]

If all killing is wrong, then the police should be disarmed. Any time a policeman shoots someone in the line of duty he is making a decision to take a life; and that's one man, not a jury coming to a reasoned decision.

Me, if someone threatens my family or friends in a manner that makes me believe he's serious, I'll kill him. Cheerfully.

As to the death penalty, we just recently had a five-year-old girl murdered by her next-door neighbor. Not only do I hope they fry the &*#^@#*, I actually think a simple death is to good for him. I'd like to see a little torture thrown in as well.

[waste gate]

It's also a deterence because the accused, condemmed will never do it again.

No, because the argument is that death penalty is a deterrence - for others than the the execution candidate. General crime statistics cannot support this thesis, nor the study of individual cases. In fact, the practicing of death penalties does not seem to have any significant effect on the number of crimes being committed at all.

OK, I'll go along with your thesis. Perhaps if the punishment came within two years, instesd of ten plus years, the deterent effect would be greater. Since terrible crimes are easily forgotten, the sooner the punishment the more likely the deterent.

[kiwi_2005]

If all killing is wrong, then the police should be disarmed. Any time a policeman shoots someone in the line of duty he is making a decision to take a life; and that's one man, not a jury coming to a reasoned decision.

Me, if someone threatens my family or friends in a manner that makes me believe he's serious, I'll kill him. Cheerfully.

As to the death penalty, we just recently had a five-year-old girl murdered by her next-door neighbor. Not only do I hope they fry the &*#^@#*, I actually think a simple death is to good for him. I'd like to see a little torture thrown in as well.

writes down notes: When in subsim do not upset sailor steve :arrgh!:

[Sailor Steve]

You can upset me all you want. I'm a very peaceful guy.


Just don't threaten my loved ones.

[Yahoshua]

(eats popcorn)

[waste gate]

Just don't threaten my loved ones.

So you believe in the death penalty after all.

[Skybird]

There is a Polish film maker who made a series of movies about the ten commandments. For "You shall not kill", he tells the story of a young man who becomes a murder and gets caught, sentenced, and executed. Unfortunately, I neither do remember the title, nor the name of that guy. Kozlowski, maybe? The prison scenes, the sheer absurdity of the civilized "ceremony" of bringing someone to execution and ritually lead him through his final minutes, unmasks the pervertion that is behind any consideration of death as a "penalty". One moment that guys smokes his last cigarette, guards around him, standing together like old friends, smiling - the next moment he is fighting for his life, yelling, pushing, guards grabbing him, and the others handling the rope. Grotesque.

[Sailor Steve]

Just don't threaten my loved ones.

So you believe in the death penalty after all.
Never said I didn't.

[kiwi_2005]

You can upset me all you want. I'm a very peaceful guy.


Just don't threaten my loved ones.

I agree. Its takes along time for me to be angry, but someone just needs to threaten my family and im Rambo - minus the muscles. Its easy for ppl to say killing is not good etc., but if they saw someone trying to kill one of their own family members, i think the "Thou shall not kill" theory would go right out the window.:yep:

[waste gate]

It's just a cold cruel way for revenge.

Ok, it's the same game of revenge you've been playing with me all day. The only difference is the severity of the penalty. You take a life, your life is forfeit.

[Skybird]

It's also a deterrence because the accused, condemmed will never do it again.

No, because the argument is that death penalty is a deterrence - for others than the the execution candidate. General crime statistics cannot support this thesis, nor the study of individual cases. In fact, the practising of death penalties does not seem to have any significant effect on the number of crimes being committed at all.

OK, I'll go along with your thesis. Perhaps if the punishment came within two years, instead of ten plus years, the deterrent effect would be greater. Since terrible crimes are easily forgotten, the sooner the punishment the more likely the deterrent.

Any psychologist and behaviourist tells you that it is hard solid fact from experimental research that the more time lies between the event that is sanctioned, and the experience of the sanction, the more the probability that the subject will "learn" something from it is declining: the probability that it will chnage it's behavior as a reaction to the penalty falls constantly, and quickly with time. that's why it is especially important with young ones who for example have stolen, that they are brought to court and feel a sanction as soon as possible - best would be the next day. Also, there must be an "aversive stimulus" that can be felt, that is a must: to impose just a suspended sentence is contra-productive. It would be better, if for some pedagogical reasons a penalty is not suspended, but cut shorter. I would send a 15 year old teenager who has stolen for the first time to prison, but only for a couple of days, say half or full a week. But common practise is that for extremely questionable pedagogical reasons and concerns that the future of this young and still developing person could suffer harm, any penalty is suspended, or is transformed into some social work - that the offender may not be used to, but probably do not think of as a really aversive stimulus that a penalty by definition should be. It's mor elikely that he learns another lesson: "I can get away with it."

All this implies that the penalty does not prevent the penalised person from further existing. Your argument that a shorter time between deed and execution would be a deterrent to others, or the offender, is a non-starter, for that reason. When you are dead, you cannot be deterred, and you cannot change your behaviour in reacting to a penalising stimulus. Deterrence should work in advance, to prevent a deed. Penalty should work after the deed has been done, to prevent that it is repeated. So, you can't avoid seeing that death never can be a penalty. and since no one committing a crime on which there is death penalty expects or even plans to get caught, also for this reason death cannot be a deterrent for him, or others. and that may be the reason why death penalty has no effects of crime rates in those countries that practise it.

[waste gate]

My feeling is that the quicker death is applied to those convicted of capital crimes the more the deterent effect on others. If the deterent effect doesn't exist then why wait to execute the sentance? Two years may be too long to wait.

I suspect that murder/homicide is not the first crime committed by the individuals on death row. Perhaps we aught to try making an example of a few condemed individuals so that others think twice B4 murdering someone.

As you stated the death of a convicted muderer after ten plus years after the conviction is not a deterent to others.

[SubSerpent]

If someone killed your loved one(s) and you in turn killed them, you would be no better in God's eyes and have to live the rest of your life as well as take to your grave your spiritual convictions. Do you think that you would be in Heaven with your loved ones that had their lives taken innocently? I think not and I think you would have failed your personal test in life and your punishment would end up being a Hell created of your own surroundings of misery and loss for all eternity.

It's sad that we have to lose loved ones in life. The emotional pain is almost too much to bear sometimes. However, loved ones do not belong to us. They belong to God just as you do and just as whatever or whoever killed them. Do you curse God and seek revenge against him when a loved one gets struck by lightning in a storm and killed? Do you curse God for disease and starvation that is happening around the world if it claimed one of your loved ones?

It is funny how we as people think of ourselves, who we know, and what we have as the most important things in life. I say let God take over your heart and confide in him for the right answers and choices and you shall be saved.

[Skybird]

My feeling is that the quicker death is applied to those convicted of capital crimes the more the deterent effect on others. If the deterent effect doesn't exist then why wait to execute the sentance? Two years may be too long to wait.

I suspect that murder/homicide is not the first crime committed by the individuals on death row. Perhaps we aught to try making an example of a few condemed individuals so that others think twice B4 murdering someone.

As you stated the death of a convicted muderer after ten plus years after the conviction is not a deterent to others.

No, don't morph my statement. The importance of a short time gap between deed and sanction/penalty is with regard to the subject that is penalized - not with regard to any witnesses, observers. and if that subject is killed during the penalty, it all becomes meaningless. Others have nothing to do with it. The deterring effect for others is not increased by a shorter time gap.

Simply understand it: death by all reasons of logic cannot be a penalty. It simply is not. Pain is a penalty, if the pain is survived, or imprisonement, loosing somehting precious (money), but not death. Criterion for a penalty is that there is a time after it's execution. Obviously, this is not true for death. Death can only be a püenalty for the subject - if it is the death of someone he loves. The resulting pain and despair about that loss is the aversive stimulus, and it is survived by the offender who got sanctioned that way.

Sorry, you stand on lost ground here. ;) You have all logic against you, and the theory of penalty and how to manipulate the behaviour of a subject by ppositive or negative reinforcement is one of the few things behaviouristic theory has rocksolid ground it can claim, by extremely solid experimental data (the far-leading conclusions they oftehn draw from them - that is something different). All this stuff has found extremely detailed experimental elaboration from the late 50s to early or mid-70s, to give a very rough time scale.

[kiwi_2005]

If someone killed your loved one(s) and you in turn killed them, you would be no better in God's eyes and have to live the rest of your life as well as take to your grave your spiritual convictions. Do you think that you would be in Heaven with your loved ones that had their lives taken innocently? I think not and I think you would have failed your personal test in life and your punishment would end up being a Hell created of your own surroundings of misery and loss for all eternity.

It's sad that we have to lose loved ones in life. The emotional pain is almost too much to bear sometimes. However, loved ones do not belong to us. They belong to God just as you do and just as whatever or whoever killed them. Do you curse God and seek revenge against him when a loved one gets struck by lightning in a storm and killed? Do you curse God for disease and starvation that is happening around the world if it claimed one of your loved ones?

It is funny how we as people think of ourselves, who we know, and what we have as the most important things in life. I say let God take over your heart and confide in him for the right answers and choices and you shall be saved.

Your got a good heart SubSerpent. And your correct. But what im saying is, its a reaction to the event, if i saw someone stabbing my sons or about to shoot them i would react in a way where i would probably kill him. I would not be able to control myself or sit back. I dont think any parent would if they saw there wife/son/daughter about to be killed - their reaction would be to protect & kill that person. But if it happened and i wasn't around only to see the killer later in court i dont think i would want to kill him, i would hope he gets a very long jail term and i would probably hate him for years. Forgiveness would take a long time.

[waste gate]

Better to torture them instead? Because the pain is punishment.

[Skybird]

Better to torture them instead? Because the pain is punishment.
If you want to put it that way, yes. Being imprisoned in a cell 3x3 m for 15 or 20 years or the rest of your life, is a form of torture, less on the physical and more on the psychological and mental level.

In fact, mild forms of tortures is what many parents still are using occasionally if their kids misbehaved :lol:

Psychologists simply talk of aversive stimuli that function as a penalty. You could also penalize not by inflicting a negative stimulus, but by ending the sensation of a positve stimulus.

In the end, a penalty is meant to change the behavior of the subject, in the way the experimenter thinks it to be more acceptable/wishable/correct. A penalty is a process of conditioning, and when it is over, the behavior, the reactions to a given stimulus should have been changed by the subject, in order to avoid the re-inflicting of the negative/aversive stimuli or the denial of positive stimuli. Limiting somebody's freedom, for example. It's all about shapening a preferred behavior pattern. In the understanding of behavioursim, this is the exclusive meaning of "learning".

[Skybird]

The Polish film author I talked of somehwere above is Krzysztof Kieślowski (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krzysztof_Kie%C5%9Blowski) , the movie is part of the so-called "Decalog" and has the title "A short film about killing".

german wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ein_kurzer_Film_%C3%BCber_das_T%C3%B6ten

It won the european film award 1988, and the special prize of the jury in Cannes 1988.

[SubSerpent]

If someone killed your loved one(s) and you in turn killed them, you would be no better in God's eyes and have to live the rest of your life as well as take to your grave your spiritual convictions. Do you think that you would be in Heaven with your loved ones that had their lives taken innocently? I think not and I think you would have failed your personal test in life and your punishment would end up being a Hell created of your own surroundings of misery and loss for all eternity.

It's sad that we have to lose loved ones in life. The emotional pain is almost too much to bear sometimes. However, loved ones do not belong to us. They belong to God just as you do and just as whatever or whoever killed them. Do you curse God and seek revenge against him when a loved one gets struck by lightning in a storm and killed? Do you curse God for disease and starvation that is happening around the world if it claimed one of your loved ones?

It is funny how we as people think of ourselves, who we know, and what we have as the most important things in life. I say let God take over your heart and confide in him for the right answers and choices and you shall be saved.

Your got a good heart SubSerpent. And your correct. But what im saying is, its a reaction to the event, if i saw someone stabbing my sons or about to shoot them i would react in a way where i would probably kill him. I would not be able to control myself or sit back. I dont think any parent would if they saw there wife/son/daughter about to be killed - their reaction would be to protect & kill that person. But if it happened and i wasn't around only to see the killer later in court i dont think i would want to kill him, i would hope he gets a very long jail term and i would probably hate him for years. Forgiveness would take a long time.


I can imagine that the rage you would feel would be enough to do something so foolish. However, as humans and spiritual beings we have to remain focused on our faith. God is there for us no matter what and it is he who we should confide in during difficult times. It's alright on your part to want to prevent death (saving your loved one(s), but how can you prevent death when you bring death (Killing a person whom you assumed was going to kill your loved ones)?

If the person had already killed your loved one(s), then there is nothing you could do about it except to accept it as it is. It was in God's will that it happened that way. Your test would be on how well you handled it. Did you keep your faith and trust in God or did you take the easy solution and go astray? Either way your loved ones are with the Lord and you and the murderer remain. Now what do you do? Do you kill him? Do you allow your rage and hate to consume you so much that you lose all connection to your faith? To do so would be just as sinful as what he had done.

No doubt, it would be a difficult path to have to stay on considering there are times and things beyond our control that make it oh so easy to go astray. You just gotta try to stay focused on your faith and let God consume your heart and soul and be rest assured that the guilty do pay.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-3072636374839271999&sourceid=zeitgeist

[Captain Nemo]

So what should be done with this fella?
Only two minor arrests. He is a butcher both literally and figuratively. He took the life of a human being, then carved her up nice and neat.



MINEOLA, New York — A man was jailed without bail Saturday, one day after he was arrested on charges he dismembered his neighbor and drove around with her severed head in the trunk of his car.

Evan Marshall, 31, of Glen Cove, New York, was arraigned on second-degree murder in the brutal slaying of Denice Fox at her home inside an exclusive gated community in Glen Cove. Police said Marshall kept the victim's body parts inside several trash bins in the basement of his home — except for the head, which was in his 1990 Toyota.
The 57-year-old Fox was a retired school teacher, and authorities offered no motive for Thursday's gruesome slaying. Marshall had no violent criminal history, with arrests only for petit larceny and driving while intoxicated, authorities said.
He was arrested Friday after driving his car back to his home, where police were waiting. Two large carving knives were recovered at the crime scene, police said.

On Thursday, Fox's daughter called Glen Cove police after discovering her mother was missing and finding blood in the vestibule of her mother's home. Police canvassing the neighborhood were allowed into the home where Marshall lived with his mother, and soon made their grisly discovery. Marshall also was suspected of using his car to run down a woman walking on a sidewalk about a 1 mile away from the Fox home on Thursday morning. The unidentified woman was hospitalized, but her injuries were not life-threatening.


On another note, perhaps the death penalty would be more justly applied if it was administered no more than two years after the crime. No more sitting on death row for ten plus years.

I agree. If you are going to have a death penalty it should be administered quickly. When the UK had the death penalty, the convicted person had one appeal to the Home Secretary, if that failed, after three clear Sundays the convict would hang. Basically between trial and execution would be no more than three weeks.

Nemo

[August]

I oppose the death penalty. Not because i have anything against giving killers a dose of their own medicine, heck if it were up to me i'd go back to public hangings and sell tickets, but rather because i don't want to see an innocent man or woman executed.

If it's prison for life (real life without parole, not the Euro "couple years and out" version) then at least if evidence comes to light that clears the person we're not pardoning a corpse. Once a person is executed the point becomes moot.

[joea]

"Thou shalt not Kill" is a mistranslation. It should read "Thou shalt not Murder".

I don't know how you mistranslate the Lords words? "Thou shall not kill" is written plain as day. Are you saying the Lord somehow made a mistake and doesn't know what he said?

No. Are you saying the Lord wrote the 10 commandments in modern English?

August is right SubSerpent. The difference between term "murder" and "killing" in this context is the term in Hebrew referred to "unlawful killing" (much like our modern distinction with terms like manslaughter and first and second degree murder) and "lawful killing". Why would God tell the Hebrews not to kill, under any circumstances as you seem to imply, then help them kill their enemies in war (David vs. Golaith for the most famous example) or to stone adulterers, murderers etc? Obviously the New Testament changed that, "turn the other cheek" as Jesus preached etc. Of course for non-believers this does not matter, ther are other moral arguments for and against the death penalty.

As it stands I am against the death penalty for reasons August put forth (executing an innocent man) plus others, like the fact poor cannot afford the best lawyers, I do not believe it is a deterrent either.

[Sailor Steve]

...but rather because i don't want to see an innocent man or woman executed...Once a person is executed the point becomes moot.
And that is the one thing I do agree with. If someone is to be executed the evidence must be incontrivertible, and that's sometimes hard to establish.

[fredbass]

"Thou shalt not Kill" is a mistranslation. It should read "Thou shalt not Murder".


I don't know how you mistranslate the Lords words? "Thou shall not kill" is written plain as day. Are you saying the Lord somehow made a mistake and doesn't know what he said?

He didn't make a mistake. It's just that the word Kill can be interpreted in various ways, such as rightly kill or wrongly kill. He just left out an adjective. So what. :know:

[SUBMAN1]

This was is a bit brutal wouldn't you say? I am not condoning the acts that inmate(s) have done to get themselves put there, but I think that torturing someone to death is a bit grizzly. I vote give em the needle in future (it gets the job done just as well and it is a lot more humane). Actually, I would perfer to abolish the death penalty altogether. I think it is wrong of the government to be able to commit pre-meditated murder under the power of State. What ever happened to the power of God and "Thou shall not Kill? What makes a State think that they are more powerful and Just than the Almighty?


http://www.crimemagazine.com/davis1.htm

Warning: (view the pictures at your own risk)
Pictures at the bottom of the site are a bit violent!

That same allmighty god endorses the death penalty in the bible as a deterrent. People who do not risk losing as much as the person they are murdering will be more likely to do it than one that does. That is if they are still of somewhat sound mind.

[The Avon Lady]

"Thou shalt not Kill" is a mistranslation. It should read "Thou shalt not Murder".


I don't know how you mistranslate the Lords words? "Thou shall not kill" is written plain as day. Are you saying the Lord somehow made a mistake and doesn't know what he said?

He didn't make a mistake. It's just that the word Kill can be interpreted in various ways, such as rightly kill or wrongly kill. He just left out an adjective. So what. :know:
You're both mistaken. The Hebrew words for the 6th Commandment are "lo tirtzach." The word "tirtzach" specifically means "murder" in both ancient and modern Hebrew. Had the commandment wanted to generically forbid killing, it would have used the standard Hebrew word for "kill", which is "taharog."

[retired1212]

<Edit - Gizzmoe>

[Skybird]

The comment above is unacceptable for the standards of this board and illustrates either a very juvenile or a very primitive mindset.

[Gizzmoe]

The comment above is unacceptable for the standards of this board

Indeed...

[retired1212]

It was a sarcasm :-?
(*psst* I am in a trolling mood today)

[scandium]

As I understand it, the biblical maxim about "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" was intended to mean that man, or society, in punishing one who has harmed someone else should receive only punishment that is proportionate to the harm originally inflicted.

That was from an age where stealing a loaf of bread could cost you an arm, and assaulting someone of a higher station could easily cost you your life (and usually by the most painful ways imaginable); thus, the verse is not meant to justify revenge, as so many misinterpret it, but instead it advocates restraint and proportionality.

Personally I have always opposed the death penalty. It is a fact that innocent people have been executed that newer evidence would have aquitted them on had they not been put to death first. It also has no deterrent effect: people who commit capital crimes do so eother in the heat of the moment, where passion overtakes sense, or do not believe they'll be caught and therefore do not consider the consequences to themselves.

I also oppose the death penalty because it practices, under legitimate cover of the state, the very thing it condemns and punishes with death; to me this presents a moral and ethical paradox, particularly when the state executes an indivual later proven to be innocent - this puts the state on the same moral level as the murderers it executes, in that it too has taken innocent life, but under cover of beuracracy and therefore without anyone to hold accountable. That is too much power for a government to wield over its own citizens, since it presents the possibility for abuse and for innocent people to be railroaded and put to death with nobody to be held accountable.

Ultimately it is cognitive dissonance at the societal level; we are taught from birth that it is wrong to murder innocent people, only to be raised (in some societies) in a culture that tolerates the state perpetrating the very action that is supposedly the ultimate evil - so what does that make the state and the society that condones and even celebrates such practice, and what effect does it have on young minds that have to integrate these contradictory concepts?

I strongly suspect that any examination of states that practice capital punishment will have both more violent crime and higher murder rates than those that do not.

[August]

It is a fact that innocent people have been executed that newer evidence would have aquitted them on had they not been put to death first. It also has no deterrent effect: people who commit capital crimes do so eother in the heat of the moment, where passion overtakes sense, or do not believe they'll be caught and therefore do not consider the consequences to themselves.

This part i can agree with. Nobody commits a crime without at least some expectation of getting away with it, so it doesn't matter if the penalty is death or life in prison.

[The Avon Lady]

As I understand it, the biblical maxim about "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" was intended to mean that man, or society, in punishing one who has harmed someone else should receive only punishment that is proportionate to the harm originally inflicted.
That verse refers specifically to cases of compensation for physical injury and was never understood to be taken literally.

That is only one verse out of dozens in the Bible that refers to criminal violations and their punishments.

[SUBMAN1]

I strongly suspect that any examination of states that practice capital punishment will have both more violent crime and higher murder rates than those that do not.
Precisely the opposite. US violent crime rate is less than 1/4 of what it was since the death penalty was reinstated.

-S

PS. I think it was 1976 where capital punishment was on the table. Have to go look it up.

[SUBMAN1]

One more thing - these killers are coming up for parol, and some of them get out to kill again. We have a way screwed up system in the US.

Our phych people keep telling us that positive reinforcement will solve all our problems. One only need look around them to see what we are becoming based on those ideas.

[Skybird]

As I understand it, the biblical maxim about "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" was intended to mean that man, or society, in punishing one who has harmed someone else should receive only punishment that is proportionate to the harm originally inflicted.
That verse refers specifically to cases of compensation for physical injury and was never understood to be taken literally.

That is only one verse out of dozens in the Bible that refers to criminal violations and their punishments.

I think it is more profound. The concept of blood revenge for example reflects it. One family/clan/tribe suffers a loss, one of theirs got slaughtered by another clan/tribe/family. so they kill one of them. One "system" suffered a loss, the cosmic balance is out of balance and needs to be restored. You can't put back a weight/life into the one pan, so instead you take away one equal weight from the other pan. That is the ancient concept of "justice": keeping a balance. In principal, the concept of "revenge" is nothing else, only that it can become "pathologically contaminated": by the wish to inflicht even more damage than one has suffered: you are picking away an even greater weight than what has been taken from you.

Today's western civilization thinks we have better concepts of "justice". We think, justice is to compensate for damage that one has done, or to sanction the offender's behavior by a system of penalty and motivational reinforcement, so that he may understand the first as a chance to learn, and see the latter as a second chance to prove his value for the community. And beside this understanding of justice in legal contexts, we have the social idea of justice, that is to take from those who have more, and give that to those who have less. In European societies, this is called the principle of solidarity, or "Solidargemeinschaft". But this principle has nothing to do with justice, it is an arbitrary taking, and an arbitrary giving. That is just a way to go a society by communal consensus has agreed upon to follow, originally for reasons of taking care for the weak and the old, later to form national structures - long before the greater family lost in importance.

concerning the legal context of justice, one can argue if we really are so successful in our understanding of the term. Penalty and reinforcement, I said, and compensating for damage. that all is nice and well as long as the damage is reversible, or is of a kind that one can compensate for. Which is not the case if something got destroyed that cannot be replaced, or someone got killed. Here the idea of our modern justice fails, we inflict penalty and reinforcement although knowing that there cannot be compensation and repair. So, jailing a murder for 20 years - may be a means of protecting the public, but if it is a crime of passion and the guy usually has been harmless and the pöublic does not need to be protected, it is not about compensation, and protection, and also not about learning (for the man knows that what he did was wrong). It simply is - archaic revenge again. after "we" have taken our revenge, eventually the guy is given a second chance to return into the community. but the term he has served - has been good for nothing, just our revenge.

What about the murderer who really is aggressive and dangerous by character? One can hardly argue that such a person is taught to become a better being when putting him into a crowded jail. chances are (and statistics reflect that), that in prison, with all those contacts to other prisoners, he might become an even more evil person. so here the argument can only be seen as that of protecting the community. But our idea of rehabilitation, and behavioral manipulation (hopefully for the better) often is failing.

[SUBMAN1]

Here is your murder vs excution graph for the United States by year. Less executions = more murders every time:

http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/2011/deathpenaltygraph2wc8.jpg


Also, to use the argument that capital punishment is not a deterrant, is to say that prisons should be abolished because they are not a deterrant either.

Anyway, the numbers speak for themselves. Capitol punishment works.

My only issue - make sure any evidence that can prove ones innocence be examined before death is administered.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

I forgot a note about the chart above - Why did murders rise after 1967? The death penalty was abolished. Now you can see in black and white the effect it had on the murder rate!!!

To tell me you live in a perfect world where the Death Penalty is not needed is to bury your head in the sand.

[The Avon Lady]

Anyway, the numbers speak for themselves. Capitol punishment works.
Can you find a statistic of how many murders go unsolved? That is, there might also be an incentive to literally "get away with murder", if the odds are good enough. That, too, would influence a homicide rate, whether capital punishment is in effect or not.

[SUBMAN1]

Anyway, the numbers speak for themselves. Capitol punishment works. Can you find a statistic of how many murders go unsolved? That is, there might also be an incentive to literally "get away with murder", if the odds are good enough. That, too, would influence a homicide rate, whether capital punishment is in effect or not.
Its probably there too, but I don't think that changes much from a set rate. It would be a pretty flat statistic. It would of course get better with technology, but forensics is never black and white as shown on CSI.

-S

PS. This has no bearing on the numbers above however.

[Skybird]

We had such statistics during a dedicated seminary at university, 1995 I think. Indeed the number of unsolved (or even not recognized!) murder cases are what messes up that beautifully drawn graphics bar for Western countries. I cannot quote all that stuff by memory anymore, but I remember the conclusions literature described. A link between number of executions and crime rate statistically has not been proven and even was not hinted at, at least until the mid-90s. since it is also unlogical to assume that such a link could exist in Western nations (as I argued before), this is no surprise.

[SUBMAN1]

We had such statistics during a dedicated seminary at university, 1995 I think. Indeed the number of unsolved (or even not recognized!) murder cases are what messes up that beautifully drawn graphics bar for Western countries. I cannot quote all that stuff by memory anymore, but I remember the conclusions literature described. A link between number of executions and crime rate statistically has not been proven and even was not hinted at, at least until the mid-90s. since it is also unlogical to assume that such a link could exist in Western nations (as I argued before), this is no surprise.


But that bar includes all murders. So unsolved or not, executions is to be held accountable for the step decline in the number of murders. So I don't quite get what you are getting at - that graph is 'ALL' murders.


A quote by Edward Koch:

"Had the death penalty been a real possibility in the minds of...murderers, they might well have stayed their hand. They might have shown moral awareness before their victims died...Consider the tragic death of Rosa Velez, who happened to be home when a man named Luis Vera burglarized her apartment in Brooklyn. "Yeah, I shot her," Vera admitted. "...and I knew I wouldn't go to the chair."

[Skybird]

It's ten years ago, and so I do not have it all on my mind anymore. But we even had very different statistics for the same time period about the same country!

BTW, your graphs only describe a correlation, somewhat (not really, but you emphasize the link between two variables without further elaboratin it). Every academic who is trained in statistics will tell you that a correlation never - NEVER - tells you something about a causal link (nor does the display of just two graphs). A correlation coefficient (or the two graphs shown) only tells you something about to what degree the two variables tend to show "linked" values, for whatever a reason (there could be third and more variables involved). So, WHY they do that is a completely different story. In your graphic it means that the fact that the two graphs in your interpretation mirror each other's meaning, does not autpmatically mean that the one variable (number of death sentences) is causing the result of the other (crime rate). Like if you find a correlation between hair colour and size of shoes does not mean that the colour of your hair has an influence on the size of your feet. the drop in crime rate could be caused by very different things, and the graph of executions simply is a coincidence. You need far more statistical analysis and an elaboration on the raw data to come to a more meaningful conclusion.

The public is often fooled by simplified statistics, to get it into the direction an interested party wants it to move at.

In other words: that simple graphic - for the time being means nothing. It could be that some defender of death penalty just arranged it while ignorring the statistical background analysis, knowing that it would catch people's eyes and that most would willingly interpret it the way you just did yourself. Even if the counting results are correct - it still does not mean anything. It is bad statistical procedure, and bad academical procedure. It could be very different. Maybe more police personnell (just an example). Less poverty leading to less robberies with murder. Less alcohol or less love affairs leading to murderings commited as crimes of passions. Or a love&justice epidemic brought out. Who knows...

As my old statistics prof time and again was preaching us: "A statistical mean value is absolutely worthless if given without a couple of additional discriptive values, such as variance, and the like." Right he was.

[SUBMAN1]

It's ten years ago, and so I do not have it all on my mind anymore. But we even had very different statistics for the same time period about the same country!

BTW, your graphs only describe a correlation, somewhat (not really, but you emphaisze the link between two variables without further elaboratin it). Every academic trained in statistics will tell you that a correlation never - NEVER - tells you something about a causal link (nor does the display of just two graphs). A correlation coefficient (or the two graphs shown) only tells you something about to what degree the two variables tend to show "linked" values. WHY they do that is a completely different story. In your graphic it means that the fact that the two graphs in your interpretation mirror each other's meaning, does not autimatically mean that the one variable (number od death sentences) is causing the result of the other (crime rate). Like if you find a correlation between hair colour and size of shoes does not mean that the colopur of your hair has an influence on the size of your feet. the drop in crime rate could be casue by very different things, and the graoh of executions simply is a coincidence. You need far more statistical analysis and an elaboration on the raw data to come to a more meaningful conclusion.

In other words: that simple graphic - for the time being means nothing. It cpould be that some defender of death penalty just arranged it wshile ignorring the statistical background analysis, knowing that it would catch people's eyes and that most would willingly interpret it the way you just did yourself. But that is bad statistical procedure, and bad academical procedure. It could be very different. Maybe more police personnell (just an example). Less poverty leading to less robberies with murder. Less alcohol or less love affairs leading to murderings commited as crimes of passions. Who knows...

As my old statistics prof time and again was preaching us: "A statistical mean value is absolutely worthless if given without a couple of additional discriptive values, such as variance, and the like." Right he was.

Note the source - the very org that keeps this kind of data in the US.

I do not buy your arguments without statistical proof that you mention. Post it. Until you do, its all opinion.

-S

[Skybird]

Then take Bortz: "Statistik", for example, chapter on correlation. It all is most elemental statistics, really. Abusing data is extremely easy with statistics, and very tempting.

The crime rates in Germany for 2004, specified for different categories - were quoted with three different sets of values in 2005, in different medias and "official" publications! And all authors were referring to the Bundeskriminalamt! ;)

Those two graphs only claim values. And this is simply too little for the interpretation you try. any scientific work doing such a job would be rejected to get published, or being taken as a base for producing e new drug, or whatever. It is crystal vision only.

[SUBMAN1]

Then take Bortz: "Statistik", for example, chapter on correlation. It all is most elemental statistics, really. Abusing data is extremely easy with statistics, and very tempting.

The crime rates in Germany for 2004, specified for different categories - were quoted with three different sets of values in 2005, in different medias and "official" publications! And all authors were referring to the Bundeskriminalamt! ;)

Those two graphs only claim values. And this is simply too little for the interpretation you try. any scientific work doing such a job would be rejected to get published, or being taken as a base for producing e new drug, or whatever. It is crystal vision only.
Now I understand what you are after - yeah took this with criminal law - there is a difference between statistical - reported to police - not reported - yadda yadda yadda. THis data would be from 'police' data.

This really doesn't effect the above graph simply because you are not talking about someone who got their purse stolen and didn't bother to report it. You are talking about 'dead' bodies - something that is not a 'reporting issue' since the victim doesn't have to talk (or as I should say, does a lot of talking through forensics) when they are dead - the police already know that.

So yeah, you argument works against someone that got hit in the eye and didn't report it, but doesn't work against a murder. That is why the above graph is valid. The death penalty was reinstated because of data as shown above.

-S

[Yahoshua]

Just throwing this out there. (I already have my opinion on the DP long before this post, and nothing about it was gonna change so, have fun in the bullpen ya'll).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/22/nblair122.xml

[Skybird]

Subman,

No, you do not understand what I am after. You have given two variables. Number of executions, and number of murderings per head of population. All nice and well. But every scientist who would conclude by that that the one variable influences the other, would be laughed about, because for such a conclusion the type of data you quote simply is not good enough. You conclude on a causal connection, that is not backed by that data. The link between both variables that you conclude by the look of the two graphs - is in your eye only. There is no causal explanation that these two variables would support. Maybe it is there in reality, but the graphs and numbers do not allow you to take that as a given fact. So far, you just believe it. If that causal context is given, it would be needed to prooven by according statistical data you have won in experiment or by research, and even additonal variables, that the graphics simply does not contain.

Honestly, not kidding you, but there is not that conclusion in that graph that you want to see in it. The graphs only describe the up and down of two variables over time. It is tempting to see them interacting, for it matches your hypothesis, but the type of data does not support that. They do not say the slightest thing about wether both variables are related to each other, or not. They are purely descriptive, they describe something like a correlative context only, not a causal one. You may think this is something minor, or just a cheat, but it is not, not by logic, and not in science and statistics. Graphs like the one you have given we had been warned about time and again in statistic classes. If during the statistic exam I would have made a causal conclusion on the basis of that low-quality data that effectively describes only a correlation, it would have been game over for me. ;) A correlation, even a highly significant one that is close to 1 or -1, never means a causal connection by itself, you need to do different statistical work if you want to proove that causal connection. You need additonal processing of the raw data if you have a high correlation that makes you believe that eventually this might be a hint that there is a causal connection, and the more variables are involved, the more work it becomes.

Such statistics and graphs like this one are given because the author does not think about what he is doing or actually does not know it (the trap you just fell for yourself is very easy and tempting to step into), or he knows it but wants to fool the reader. The data only hint at that there might be a connection between variables, but not of what kind that connection is, if it is a mutual influence or not, if a third or even more variables are involved that mediate between the primary two.

I hated statistics back then, and I still hate it today, and now I hate you becasue you made me going back to it all!!! :arrgh!: No more comment on statistics from me. The more sophisticated stuff I already have forgotten anyway. :lol:

[scandium]

I'd brought the statistical thing up only to say I wouldn't be surprised if there was a correlation between a state's practice of capital punishment and an actually higher rate of homicides compared to those that do not. But as Skybird correctly points out, correlation does not equal causation and you would still need to look at more than two variables to even establish any serious correlation.

More meaningful than any simple graph would be studies done on this by independent, respected criminologists. I'm sure they've been done, though perhaps not definitive (because there are so many variables involved when trying to find this kind of causal relationship), and can probably even be found on the 'net. Maybe I'll look later out of curiousity.

[SUBMAN1]

Subman,

No, you do not understand what I am after. You have given two variables. Number of executions, and number of murderings per head of population. All nice and well. But every scientist who would conclude by that that the one variable influences the other, would be laughed about, because for such a conclusion the type of data you quote simply is not good enough. You conclude on a causal connection, that is not backed by that data. The link between both variables that you conclude by the look of the two graphs - is in your eye only. There is no causal explanation that these two variables would support. Maybe it is there in reality, but the graphs and numbers do not allow you to take that as a given fact. So far, you just believe it. If that causal context is given, it would be needed to prooven by according statistical data you have won in experiment or by research, and even additonal variables, that the graphics simply does not contain.

Honestly, not kidding you, but there is not that conclusion in that graph that you want to see in it. The graphs only describe the up and down of two variables over time. It is tempting to see them interacting, for it matches your hypothesis, but the type of data does not support that. They do not say the slightest thing about wether both variables are related to each other, or not. They are purely descriptive, they describe something like a correlative context only, not a causal one. You may think this is something minor, or just a cheat, but it is not, not by logic, and not in science and statistics. Graphs like the one you have given we had been warned about time and again in statistic classes. If during the statistic exam I would have made a causal conclusion on the basis of that low-quality data that effectively describes only a correlation, it would have been game over for me. ;) A correlation, even a highly significant one that is close to 1 or -1, never means a causal connection by itself, you need to do different statistical work if you want to proove that causal connection. You need additonal processing of the raw data if you have a high correlation that makes you believe that eventually this might be a hint that there is a causal connection, and the more variables are involved, the more work it becomes.

Such statistics and graphs like this one are given because the author does not think about what he is doing or actually does not know it (the trap you just fell for yourself is very easy and tempting to step into), or he knows it but wants to fool the reader. The data only hint at that there might be a connection between variables, but not of what kind that connection is, if it is a mutual influence or not, if a third or even more variables are involved that mediate between the primary two.

I hated statistics back then, and I still hate it today, and now I hate you becasue you made me going back to it all!!! :arrgh!: No more comment on statistics from me. The more sophisticated stuff I already have forgotten anyway. :lol:

I understand what you are saying, but people who have given the very subject a much harder look than what you and I have, and who know a hell of a lot more about it than you or I, say these numbers do correlate based on the data provided. So you can say this or that, but in the end, we mean nothing compared to people who study this for a living. The grpah I provided is done by our own criminal justice system, byt the very people who are typically biased towards abolishing the death penalty! So you tell me? Anyway, they have more data than what you see here and it is all over there website, so you can check it out for yourself.

The point is, it is easy to discount what I say using your ideas on statistics, and I hear what you are saying since there is some grey area that is allowed to fluctuate in there I'm sure, but the data is not as simple as one versus the other in this case. The two have been studied extensively.

If we follow your idea to a T, might as well throw out all graphs and measures in this world because they are meaningless to compare with one another.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

From a German persepctive:

Contrasting their nation's policy with that of the Americans, Germans point proudly to Article 102 of their Basic Law, adopted in 1949. It reads, simply: "The death penalty is abolished." They often say that this 56-year-old provision shows how thoroughly the postwar Federal Republic has learned -- and applied -- the lessons of Nazi state-sponsored killing as though having the death penalty for murderers was the sole cause of Hitler's rise to power and the genocide that followed. (Communist East Germany kept the death penalty until 1987.)

But the actual history of the German death penalty ban casts this claim in a different light. Article 102 was in fact the brainchild of a right-wing politician who sympathized with convicted Nazi war criminals -- and sought to prevent their execution by British and American occupation authorities. Far from intending to repudiate the barbarism of Hitler, the author of Article 102 wanted to make a statement about the supposed excesses of Allied victors' justice.

[joea]

From a German persepctive:

Contrasting their nation's policy with that of the Americans, Germans point proudly to Article 102 of their Basic Law, adopted in 1949. It reads, simply: "The death penalty is abolished." They often say that this 56-year-old provision shows how thoroughly the postwar Federal Republic has learned -- and applied -- the lessons of Nazi state-sponsored killing as though having the death penalty for murderers was the sole cause of Hitler's rise to power and the genocide that followed. (Communist East Germany kept the death penalty until 1987.)

But the actual history of the German death penalty ban casts this claim in a different light. Article 102 was in fact the brainchild of a right-wing politician who sympathized with convicted Nazi war criminals -- and sought to prevent their execution by British and American occupation authorities. Far from intending to repudiate the barbarism of Hitler, the author of Article 102 wanted to make a statement about the supposed excesses of Allied victors' justice.



Ugh, irrelevant and pretty low.:down: I hope you're not saying people who oppose the death penalty are Nazis?

[Skybird]

Subman,

No, you do not understand what I am after. You have given two variables. Number of executions, and number of murderings per head of population. All nice and well. But every scientist who would conclude by that that the one variable influences the other, would be laughed about, because for such a conclusion the type of data you quote simply is not good enough. You conclude on a causal connection, that is not backed by that data. The link between both variables that you conclude by the look of the two graphs - is in your eye only. There is no causal explanation that these two variables would support. Maybe it is there in reality, but the graphs and numbers do not allow you to take that as a given fact. So far, you just believe it. If that causal context is given, it would be needed to prooven by according statistical data you have won in experiment or by research, and even additonal variables, that the graphics simply does not contain.

Honestly, not kidding you, but there is not that conclusion in that graph that you want to see in it. The graphs only describe the up and down of two variables over time. It is tempting to see them interacting, for it matches your hypothesis, but the type of data does not support that. They do not say the slightest thing about wether both variables are related to each other, or not. They are purely descriptive, they describe something like a correlative context only, not a causal one. You may think this is something minor, or just a cheat, but it is not, not by logic, and not in science and statistics. Graphs like the one you have given we had been warned about time and again in statistic classes. If during the statistic exam I would have made a causal conclusion on the basis of that low-quality data that effectively describes only a correlation, it would have been game over for me. ;) A correlation, even a highly significant one that is close to 1 or -1, never means a causal connection by itself, you need to do different statistical work if you want to proove that causal connection. You need additonal processing of the raw data if you have a high correlation that makes you believe that eventually this might be a hint that there is a causal connection, and the more variables are involved, the more work it becomes.

Such statistics and graphs like this one are given because the author does not think about what he is doing or actually does not know it (the trap you just fell for yourself is very easy and tempting to step into), or he knows it but wants to fool the reader. The data only hint at that there might be a connection between variables, but not of what kind that connection is, if it is a mutual influence or not, if a third or even more variables are involved that mediate between the primary two.

I hated statistics back then, and I still hate it today, and now I hate you becasue you made me going back to it all!!! :arrgh!: No more comment on statistics from me. The more sophisticated stuff I already have forgotten anyway. :lol:

I understand what you are saying, but people who have given the very subject a much harder look than what you and I have, and who know a hell of a lot more about it than you or I, say these numbers do correlate based on the data provided. So you can say this or that, but in the end, we mean nothing compared to people who study this for a living. The grpah I provided is done by our own criminal justice system, byt the very people who are typically biased towards abolishing the death penalty! So you tell me? Anyway, they have more data than what you see here and it is all over there website, so you can check it out for yourself.

The point is, it is easy to discount what I say using your ideas on statistics, and I hear what you are saying since there is some grey area that is allowed to fluctuate in there I'm sure, but the data is not as simple as one versus the other in this case. The two have been studied extensively.

If we follow your idea to a T, might as well throw out all graphs and measures in this world because they are meaningless to compare with one another.

-S

It is not my subjective opinion on death penalty, but it is your subjective (mis?)understabding what a correlation is. And a correlation is no causal connection. You will not find a single statistics book in the world saying that. It has nothing to do wether I am an expert in crime rate, or you, or we both not. It is about most elemental statistics, most basic ground of it. Or better: the violation of rules set on this most basic level. Your graph does say nothing about a causal context. Talk what you want, it remains that, for solid fact, hard, scientific/statistical reasons.

That'S why your conclusions often also is objected. If the data really were so solid as you think by looking at that picture, it would be much harder for critics to do so.

Okay, either you know about the basics of statistics, or you don't. I myself am not intersted too much into that or the theme at hand to endlessly wanting to give you a private seminary in it :D Just grab a book. Painfully thick and in-depth statistic books are around by the dozens, if not hundreds. You simply misunderstood what a correlation is, and what it means. A correlation is no causal connection. Two graphs that are given without further data and statistical processing are no causal connection (never, btw.).

If such a thing is done with regard to global warming, describing temperature, and some emission output, critics and economists who want to leave things as they are immediately would start yelling and say: those graphs mean nothing, they mean no causal connection - that still has to be prooven. In fact the whole debate about wether there is manmade warming or not often is based on this - and in principal such critics are right. It needs indeed different statistical tools and reasearch data to prove a causal connection. A correlation prooves nothing.

If you want to check if a high correlation means a causal connection between two variables, depending on the overall desoign and data type and number of variables you need to do things like variance analysis, F-tests or discrimination analysis, and if you find that there are indermediating variables having an influence (resulting in more than just two or three variables), you even need to do factor analysis. Only these allow you to assess if the ammount of interaction between two variables allow to conclude on a causal connection, or if it is just random variance. Both outcomes are imaginable, even with high correlations.

Ordinary audience does not think about these things and may not know aboiut the background, that'S why politics and market managers love these simplified graphs to manipulate the public into the direction they want them to move. It looks convincing, nevertheless in that state is close to meaningless. Ii is nonsens, and illogical. You even do not need statistics to see that the interpretation of those graphs in the way it is intended is simply illogical. Because they only give you two values, and nothing else.

The latter out-of-area comment about Nazis I take as a hint that you are pretty desperate now.:lol: The issue described there has nothing to do with correlations and misinterpreting graphs.


In probability theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory) and statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics), correlation, also called correlation coefficient, indicates the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two random variables (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_variables). In general statistical usage, correlation or co-relation refers to the departure of two variables from independence, although correlation does not imply causality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality). In this broad sense there are several coefficients, measuring the degree of correlation, adapted to the nature of data. Etc. etc. etc.

And here: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167#STUDIES
as I have indicated in a previous posting, there is opposing statistics, too. ski8mming over the data that are available on this site, I found at firts glance far too many exceptions from the trend in subman'S graphs as that one could argue there is a connection between number of executions, and cases of murder. Often it is that states with death penalty that have higher crime rates, while states with no death penalty saw slightly falling crime rates.
This does not say it is this or that way. It just illustrates that a single graph says nothing without further elaboration and researching additonal background data and information.

And just to provoke some imagination:


http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterbrut.gif

Marvellous what one can do with just a mean value of two variables, undocumented! :smug:

[SUBMAN1]

From a German persepctive:
Contrasting their nation's policy with that of the Americans, Germans point proudly to Article 102 of their Basic Law, adopted in 1949. It reads, simply: "The death penalty is abolished." They often say that this 56-year-old provision shows how thoroughly the postwar Federal Republic has learned -- and applied -- the lessons of Nazi state-sponsored killing as though having the death penalty for murderers was the sole cause of Hitler's rise to power and the genocide that followed. (Communist East Germany kept the death penalty until 1987.)

But the actual history of the German death penalty ban casts this claim in a different light. Article 102 was in fact the brainchild of a right-wing politician who sympathized with convicted Nazi war criminals -- and sought to prevent their execution by British and American occupation authorities. Far from intending to repudiate the barbarism of Hitler, the author of Article 102 wanted to make a statement about the supposed excesses of Allied victors' justice.


Ugh, irrelevant and pretty low.:down: I hope you're not saying people who oppose the death penalty are Nazis?

Nope - just that this guy had that passed so that his friends wouldn't be executed.

[SUBMAN1]

Subman,

No, you do not understand what I am after. You have given two variables. Number of executions, and number of murderings per head of population. All nice and well. But every scientist who would conclude by that that the one variable influences the other, would be laughed about, because for such a conclusion the type of data you quote simply is not good enough. You conclude on a causal connection, that is not backed by that data. The link between both variables that you conclude by the look of the two graphs - is in your eye only. There is no causal explanation that these two variables would support. Maybe it is there in reality, but the graphs and numbers do not allow you to take that as a given fact. So far, you just believe it. If that causal context is given, it would be needed to prooven by according statistical data you have won in experiment or by research, and even additonal variables, that the graphics simply does not contain.

Honestly, not kidding you, but there is not that conclusion in that graph that you want to see in it. The graphs only describe the up and down of two variables over time. It is tempting to see them interacting, for it matches your hypothesis, but the type of data does not support that. They do not say the slightest thing about wether both variables are related to each other, or not. They are purely descriptive, they describe something like a correlative context only, not a causal one. You may think this is something minor, or just a cheat, but it is not, not by logic, and not in science and statistics. Graphs like the one you have given we had been warned about time and again in statistic classes. If during the statistic exam I would have made a causal conclusion on the basis of that low-quality data that effectively describes only a correlation, it would have been game over for me. ;) A correlation, even a highly significant one that is close to 1 or -1, never means a causal connection by itself, you need to do different statistical work if you want to proove that causal connection. You need additonal processing of the raw data if you have a high correlation that makes you believe that eventually this might be a hint that there is a causal connection, and the more variables are involved, the more work it becomes.

Such statistics and graphs like this one are given because the author does not think about what he is doing or actually does not know it (the trap you just fell for yourself is very easy and tempting to step into), or he knows it but wants to fool the reader. The data only hint at that there might be a connection between variables, but not of what kind that connection is, if it is a mutual influence or not, if a third or even more variables are involved that mediate between the primary two.

I hated statistics back then, and I still hate it today, and now I hate you becasue you made me going back to it all!!! :arrgh!: No more comment on statistics from me. The more sophisticated stuff I already have forgotten anyway. :lol:
I understand what you are saying, but people who have given the very subject a much harder look than what you and I have, and who know a hell of a lot more about it than you or I, say these numbers do correlate based on the data provided. So you can say this or that, but in the end, we mean nothing compared to people who study this for a living. The grpah I provided is done by our own criminal justice system, byt the very people who are typically biased towards abolishing the death penalty! So you tell me? Anyway, they have more data than what you see here and it is all over there website, so you can check it out for yourself.

The point is, it is easy to discount what I say using your ideas on statistics, and I hear what you are saying since there is some grey area that is allowed to fluctuate in there I'm sure, but the data is not as simple as one versus the other in this case. The two have been studied extensively.

If we follow your idea to a T, might as well throw out all graphs and measures in this world because they are meaningless to compare with one another.

-S
It is not my subjective opinion on death penalty, but it is your subjective (mis?)understabding what a correlation is. And a correlation is no causal connection. You will not find a single statistics book in the world saying that. It has nothing to do wether I am an expert in crime rate, or you, or we both not. It is about most elemental statistics, most basic ground of it. Or better: the violation of rules set on this most basic level. Your graph does say nothing about a causal context. Talk what you want, it remains that, for solid fact, hard, scientific/statistical reasons.

That'S why your conclusions often also is objected. If the data really were so solid as you think by looking at that picture, it would be much harder for critics to do so.

Okay, either you know about the basics of statistics, or you don't. I myself am not intersted too much into that or the theme at hand to endlessly wanting to give you a private seminary in it :D Just grab a book. Painfully thick and in-depth statistic books are around by the dozens, if not hundreds. You simply misunderstood what a correlation is, and what it means. A correlation is no causal connection. Two graphs that are given without further data and statistical processing are no causal connection (never, btw.).

If such a thing is done with regard to global warming, describing temperature, and some emission output, critics and economists who want to leave things as they are immediately would start yelling and say: those graphs mean nothing, they mean no causal connection - that still has to be prooven. In fact the whole debate about wether there is manmade warming or not often is based on this - and in principal such critics are right. It needs indeed different statistical tools and reasearch data to prove a causal connection. A correlation prooves nothing.

If you want to check if a high correlation means a causal connection between two variables, depending on the overall desoign and data type and number of variables you need to do things like variance analysis, F-tests or discrimination analysis, and if you find that there are indermediating variables having an influence (resulting in more than just two or three variables), you even need to do factor analysis. Only these allow you to assess if the ammount of interaction between two variables allow to conclude on a causal connection, or if it is just random variance. Both outcomes are imaginable, even with high correlations.

Ordinary audience does not think about these things and may not know aboiut the background, that'S why politics and market managers love these simplified graphs to manipulate the public into the direction they want them to move. It looks convincing, nevertheless in that state is close to meaningless. Ii is nonsens, and illogical. You even do not need statistics to see that the interpretation of those graphs in the way it is intended is simply illogical. Because they only give you two values, and nothing else.

The latter out-of-area comment about Nazis I take as a hint that you are pretty desperate now.:lol: The issue described there has nothing to do with correlations and misinterpreting graphs.


In probability theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory) and statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics), correlation, also called correlation coefficient, indicates the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two random variables (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_variables). In general statistical usage, correlation or co-relation refers to the departure of two variables from independence, although correlation does not imply causality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality). In this broad sense there are several coefficients, measuring the degree of correlation, adapted to the nature of data. Etc. etc. etc.
And here: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167#STUDIES
as I have indicated in a previous posting, there is opposing statistics, too. ski8mming over the data that are available on this site, I found at firts glance far too many exceptions from the trend in subman'S graphs as that one could argue there is a connection between number of executions, and cases of murder. Often it is that states with death penalty that have higher crime rates, while states with no death penalty saw slightly falling crime rates.
This does not say it is this or that way. It just illustrates that a single graph says nothing without further elaboration and researching additonal background data and information.

And just to provoke some imagination:


http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterbrut.gif

Marvellous what one can do with just a mean value of two variables, undocumented! :smug:
Two things -

A - it was not my opinion that we were analyzing, but that of our very own criminal justice system who is the one that made that graph to analyze the data.

B - You graph is looking at something else - percentage of increase - and if you look at the graph of mine, the increase is pretty stagnent across the years, which is reflected in your graph. What your graph leaves out is the reduction that it would show if it continued on with 'current execution years' in which executions were resumed - and at that point it would show and even further reduction! See - yours is leaving out have the data and that is the problem. So yours is what I would call manipulated data and only shows 2 very 'narrow' things and mine is straight data shown year by year.

Now the big thing - yours is showing based on a percentage - something that naturally decreases with population increase. That is why correct information uses a 'per capita' basis if you are looking for correlations. I'd love to see your graph on a 1991 to 2004 basis - it would be a very small percentage!

So you were saying?

-S

[SUBMAN1]

One more thought since increases vs decreases are trivial in comparrison to the crime that would warrant such a thing as an execution. It is the nature of the crime that needs to be dealt with, and I can't say it any better than this:

Edward Koch:
It is by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life that we affirm the highest value of human life.

(http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/) Mike Royko:
When I think of the thousands of inhabitants of Death Rows in the hundreds of prisons in this country...My reaction is: What's taking us so long? Let's get that electrical current flowing. Drop those pellets [of poison gas] now! Whenever I argue this with friends who have opposite views, they say that I don't have enough regard for the most marvelous of miracles - human life. Just the opposite: It's because I have so much regard for human life that I favor capital punishment. Murder is the most terrible crime there is. Anything less than the death penalty is an insult to the victim and society. It says..that we don't value the victim's life enough to punish the killer fully.
(http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/)

[Skybird]

The graph doesn't become better just because it is your official bureaus misusing statistic methods. the author is not important. The method he chooses is.

I also explained while by all reasons of formal logic, and by all understanding of human behavior modern psychology and behaviourism can offer, the term "death penalty" is a contradiction in itself. It is no penalty. Mr. Ryoko and Mr. Koch, it seems two hardcore enthusiasts for death penalty so their opinion may not be a surprise, do not change a thing in that with their statements you quote. So why should I care for them.

Anyway, it's talking to a wall with the word Subman on it, :lol: and I already said and repeated several times what there is to be said. Either you have understood the problems by now, or not. No matter what: have more fun with visiting the screenshot thread in the tank-forum now! ;) http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=97188

[SUBMAN1]

The graph doesn't become better just because it is your official bureaus misusing statistic methods. the author is not important. The method he chooses is.

I also explained while by all reasons of formal logic, and by all understanding of human behavior modern psychology and behaviourism can offer, the term "death penalty" is a contradiction in itself. It is no penalty. Mr. Ryoko and Mr. Koch, it seems two hardcore enthusiasts for death penalty so their opinion may not be a surprise, do not change a thing in that with their statements you quote. So why should I care for them.

Anyway, it's talking to a wall with the word Subman on it, :lol: and I already said and repeated several times what there is to be said. Either you have understood the problems by now, or not. No matter what: have more fun with visiting the screenshot thread in the tank-forum now! ;) http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=97188

You still fail to recognize that your graph is narrow in focused. One thing about being a proper researcher is getting your sources from valid and respected scientific places - ones that are experts in their given field. That is where mine comes from - the very source that knows how to analyze and interpret this kind of data and probably the highest source possible.

Yours however is easy to pick apart. So, you can continue to bury your head in the sand if you feel like. The data is there - mine is not narrow or focused.

-S

[HunterICX]

:-? This may sound hard but

In some cases about murders , Child raper/molesters etc etc

then i,m like ''Shoot the f*cker in the head and lets get on with our lives'':stare:

[SUBMAN1]

:-? This may sound hard but

In some cases about murders , Child raper/molesters etc etc

then i,m like ''Shoot the f*cker in the head and lets get on with our lives'':stare:

Well put. Instead we sit around cooing and ahhing over something that resembles a pile of crap.

-S

[Skybird]

You still fail to recognize that your graph is narrow in focused. One thing about being a proper researcher is getting your sources from valid and respected scientific places - ones that are experts in their given field. That is where mine comes from - the very source that knows how to analyze and interpret this kind of data and probably the highest source possible.

You have illustrated by now that you are not qualified to judge that. When you even do not know how to interpret a correlation, you shouldn't lecture others on research and statistical methods - it is ridiculous. What source that graohic is coming from is unimportant. That they made a methodical mistake in giving the data in this manner, vulnerable to interpret it as a causality (like you do, else you wouldn't have quoted that data) is the thing to remark. That is no subjctive opinion of me. That is hard solid statistical scientific fact.

It is not only about this example. Giving correlating data in a manner like in that graph is methodically wrong. Always. In every case. Since the wide population usually does not know even the basics of statistics, it is done nevertheless, to score an easy victory in turning opinions in this or that direction on the basis of oh so "hard" fact and data. But it is messed up.

The data in your graph also is not split up per state, what is needed, since you have different legislative rules in the various US states, not all of them practice d.p. So, the graph shows mean values, generalizations that again need additonal statistical indices like this absolute minimum: variance and mean variation, in order to make any minimal reasonable interpretation. And that is only the minimum standard. There are more descriptive categories to illustrate the validity of a mean value.

Concerning "my" graphic, you obviously missed the hidden irony when I wrote: "Marvellous what one can do with just a mean value of two variables, undocumented! :smug:" Instead of feeding a dead cat, you better look at the number counts that are also available on the site. Shows you that the number of murderings is constant or slightly falling in states that do not have death penalty, sometimes is even on a lower level than in states that do have d.p., while the crime rate remains high or sometimes falls sometimes climbs in states with d.p. and other contradictions. That'S why it is som often said that the statistical findings do not support the theory of a causlity between death penalty, and crime rate. The data usually is far too diverse, and partially contradictory. Not only on that site, but I do not care to search old archives and books just to illustrate that.

On the obviously logical contradiction of the term death penalty itself, and if it does not serve modern societies's understanding of penalty and justice: why it then still is used, you obviously have nothing to say.

[SUBMAN1]

You still fail to recognize that your graph is narrow in focused. One thing about being a proper researcher is getting your sources from valid and respected scientific places - ones that are experts in their given field. That is where mine comes from - the very source that knows how to analyze and interpret this kind of data and probably the highest source possible.

You have illustrated by now that you are not qualified to judge that. When you even do not know how to interpret a correlation, you shouldn't lecture others on research and statistical methods - it is ridiculous. What source that graohic is coming from is unimportant. That they made a methodical mistake in giving the data in this manner, vulnerable to interpret it as a causality (like you do, else you wouldn't have quoted that data) is the thing to remark. That is no subjctive opinion of me. That is hard solid statistical scientific fact.

It is not only about this example. Giving correlating data in a manner like in that graph is methodically wrong. Always. In every case. Since the wide population usually does not know even the basics of statistics, it is done nevertheless, to score an easy victory in turning opinions in this or that direction on the basis of oh so "hard" fact and data. But it is messed up.

The data in your graph also is not split up per state, what is needed, since you have different legislative rules in the various US states, not all of them practice d.p. So, the graph shows mean values, generalizations that again need additonal statistical indices like this absolute minimum: variance and mean variation, in order to make any minimal reasonable interpretation. And that is only the minimum standard. There are more descriptive categories to illustrate the validity of a mean value.

Concerning "my" graphic, you obviously missed the hidden irony when I wrote: "Marvellous what one can do with just a mean value of two variables, undocumented! :smug:" Instead of feeding a dead cat, you better look at the number counts that are also available on the site. Shows you that the number of murderings is constant or slightly falling in states that do not have death penalty, sometimes is even on a lower level than in states that do have d.p., while the crime rate remains high or sometimes falls sometimes climbs in states with d.p. and other contradictions. That'S why it is som often said that the statistical findings do not support the theory of a causlity between death penalty, and crime rate. The data usually is far too diverse, and partially contradictory. Not only on that site, but I do not care to search old archives and books just to illustrate that.

On the obviously logical contradiction of the term death penalty itself, and if it does not serve modern societies's understanding of penalty and justice: why it then still is used, you obviously have nothing to say.

Unlike you, I gave you an explanation for your messed up graph - population expansion. Your graph will always be lower as time moves on and population increases.

Mine is not capable of alternating based on this outside force since it is based per 100,000 people or per capita - something that is only really modified by lower than 100,000 people. That is why it is used as the most accurate statistic.

Your idea do not hold water as far as I can see. If someone kills you today, it is an insult not to exact an equal punishment on your killer.

J.J. Rousseau - The Social Contract written in 1762:

Again, every rogue who criminously attacks social rights becomes, by his wrong, a rebel and a traitor to his fatherland. By contravening its laws, he ceases to be one of its citizens: he even wages war against it. In such circumstances, the State and he cannot both be saved: one or the other must perish. In killing the criminal, we destroy not so much a citizen as an enemy. The trial and judgements are proofs that he has broken the Social Contract, and so is no longer a member of the State.-S

PS. The state by state thing would not effect much of anything, since almost all states execute, just some do more than others.

[Skybird]

What kind of knowledge about statistical methodology and data interpretation and empirical analysis do you call your own? I mean, what is your qualification?

[The Avon Lady]

Death "penalty's value as a deterrant obviously also is extremely low.
Surprise (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_deterrence)!

And bump. :D

The killer quote: "The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer."

:/\\chop

[tenakha]

for me the sole idea of a possible mistake is enough to abolish the death penalty, the idea of an innocent being put on death row someday is simply not acceptable.
François Mitterand did a great thing when he abolished it in France in 1981

[tenakha]

J.J. Rousseau - The Social Contract written in 1762:

Again, every rogue who criminously attacks social rights becomes, by his wrong, a rebel and a traitor to his fatherland. By contravening its laws, he ceases to be one of its citizens: he even wages war against it. In such circumstances, the State and he cannot both be saved: one or the other must perish. In killing the criminal, we destroy not so much a citizen as an enemy. The trial and judgements are proofs that he has broken the Social Contract, and so is no longer a member of the State.-S

If you are really interested in french litterature you should also read the numerous writtings of Victor Hugo against Death Penalty

For exemple:

Look, examine, reflect. You hold capital punishment up as an example. Why? Because of what it teaches. And just what is it that you wish to teach by means of this example? That thou shalt not kill. And how do you teach that "thou shalt not kill"? By killing.
I have examined the death penalty under each of its two aspects: as a direct action, and as an indirect one. What does it come down to? Nothing but something horrible and useless, nothing but a way of shedding blood that is called a crime when an individual commits it, but is (sadly) called "justice" when society brings it about. Make no mistake, you lawmakers and judges, in the eyes of God as in those of conscience, what is a crime when individuals do it is no less an offense when society commits the deed.
Victor Hugo, Speech at the Constituent Assembly, September 15, 1848

[The Avon Lady]

If you are really interested in french litterature you should also read the numerous writtings of Victor Hugo against Death Penalty

For exemple:

Look, examine, reflect. You hold capital punishment up as an example. Why? Because of what it teaches. And just what is it that you wish to teach by means of this example? That thou shalt not kill. And how do you teach that "thou shalt not kill"? By killing.
I have examined the death penalty under each of its two aspects: as a direct action, and as an indirect one. What does it come down to? Nothing but something horrible and useless, nothing but a way of shedding blood that is called a crime when an individual commits it, but is (sadly) called "justice" when society brings it about. Make no mistake, you lawmakers and judges, in the eyes of God as in those of conscience, what is a crime when individuals do it is no less an offense when society commits the deed.
Victor Hugo, Speech at the Constituent Assembly, September 15, 1848
There are 2 essential errors in this example:

1. The 6th of the 10 Commandments does not say "Thou shall not kill." It states "Thou shall not murder."

2. G-d in the Torah (Christianity's Old Testament) clearly advocates capital punishment under certain circumstances and accompanied by certain conditions. I am personally unaware of the New Testament's outright abolishment of capital punishment. So in the eyes of whose god was Hugo referring to?

[tenakha]

If you are really interested in french litterature you should also read the numerous writtings of Victor Hugo against Death Penalty

For exemple:

Look, examine, reflect. You hold capital punishment up as an example. Why? Because of what it teaches. And just what is it that you wish to teach by means of this example? That thou shalt not kill. And how do you teach that "thou shalt not kill"? By killing.
I have examined the death penalty under each of its two aspects: as a direct action, and as an indirect one. What does it come down to? Nothing but something horrible and useless, nothing but a way of shedding blood that is called a crime when an individual commits it, but is (sadly) called "justice" when society brings it about. Make no mistake, you lawmakers and judges, in the eyes of God as in those of conscience, what is a crime when individuals do it is no less an offense when society commits the deed.
Victor Hugo, Speech at the Constituent Assembly, September 15, 1848
There are 2 essential errors in this example:

1. The 6th of the 10 Commandments does not say "Thou shall not kill." It states "Thou shall not murder."

2. G-d in the Torah (Christianity's Old Testament) clearly advocates capital punishment under certain circumstances and accompanied by certain conditions. I am personally unaware of the New Testament's outright abolishment of capital punishment. So in the eyes of whose god was Hugo referring to?

When Victor Hugo speaks to your reason, you answer with religion. The right to kill in the name of justice as nothing to do with religion. The law has nothing to do with religion. The state has nothing to do with religion. Unless you want to apply any religious text ever written. the Torah support Capital punishment so let's apply it, christianism condemn abortion so let's forbide it, islam does not recognise the freedom of women....and so on.

Moreover, each text must be kept in it's context, JJ Rousseau wrote in a time when Death Penalty was generally accepted as slavery was.

V. Hugo wrote in a time when the 1905 law on the separation of the church and the state didn't existed

(nothing personal against you but secularism is for me the most important thing for a free country)

[Steel_Tomb]

The death penalty is a difficult thing to justify. Some could say by carrying it out you are no better than the murderer. However, in the UK murders are given "life" and are out in 8 years, its madness. Life should mean life! And why in hell should the taxpayer have to pay up for the prisons these people are kept in, with plasma TV's and gyms, they're better off than many law abiding citizens!!! Also, if we "got rid" of a number of Britains most nutorious criminals then we wouldn't be so short of prison cells. Another thing is these muslim extremists and other religious extremeists...to them death is some twisted way to "paradise", so how do you deter those who don't fear death.

This may sound harsh but its the truth, "eye for an eye", if you were facing the death penalty might make some people think twice before getting involved with crime.

Like I said before though there needs to be absolutle conclusive proof that the accused commited the crime. I could not think of a more horrifying situation than to have sentanced someone to death, only to find out he was innocent a decade later. I'm sure this discussion could go on forever, and we would still not reach a solid conclusion.

[tenakha]

Like I said before though there needs to be absolutle conclusive proof that the accused commited the crime. I could not think of a more horrifying situation than to have sentanced someone to death, only to find out he was innocent a decade later. I'm sure this discussion could go on forever, and we would still not reach a solid conclusion.

Absolute conclusive proff will never exist and for me the risk will always be too big

[micky1up]

aside from the justice part of it does the death penalty stop people killing and will it ever and the answer is a resounding no

[tenakha]

Is there less criminality in country applying the death penalty opposed to those who do not?
Again the answer is no

[The Avon Lady]

If you are really interested in french litterature you should also read the numerous writtings of Victor Hugo against Death Penalty

For exemple:

Look, examine, reflect. You hold capital punishment up as an example. Why? Because of what it teaches. And just what is it that you wish to teach by means of this example? That thou shalt not kill. And how do you teach that "thou shalt not kill"? By killing.
I have examined the death penalty under each of its two aspects: as a direct action, and as an indirect one. What does it come down to? Nothing but something horrible and useless, nothing but a way of shedding blood that is called a crime when an individual commits it, but is (sadly) called "justice" when society brings it about. Make no mistake, you lawmakers and judges, in the eyes of God as in those of conscience, what is a crime when individuals do it is no less an offense when society commits the deed.
Victor Hugo, Speech at the Constituent Assembly, September 15, 1848
There are 2 essential errors in this example:

1. The 6th of the 10 Commandments does not say "Thou shall not kill." It states "Thou shall not murder."

2. G-d in the Torah (Christianity's Old Testament) clearly advocates capital punishment under certain circumstances and accompanied by certain conditions. I am personally unaware of the New Testament's outright abolishment of capital punishment. So in the eyes of whose god was Hugo referring to?

When Victor Hugo speaks to your reason, you answer with religion.
Hugo is actually appealing to his compatriots that their religion itself negates capital punishment.
The right to kill in the name of justice as nothing to do with religion. The law has nothing to do with religion.
Obviously not true. Deal with it.
The state has nothing to do with religion.
Now that's a completely different point, which may very well be true but it was Hugo who insisted on bringing up religious convictions.
Unless you want to apply any religious text ever written. the Torah support Capital punishment so let's apply it, christianism condemn abortion so let's forbide it, islam does not recognise the freedom of women....and so on.
To clarify, I am only pointing out the inaccuacies of these particular arguments of Hugo's.
Moreover, each text must be kept in it's context, JJ Rousseau wrote in a time when Death Penalty was generally accepted as slavery was.
This is subject to interpretation. If everyone present when Hugo spoke subscribed to such interpretations, then Hugo makes sense. I have no idea what the listeners subscribed to in this regard. Do you?
V. Hugo wrote in a time when the 1905 law on the separation of the church and the state didn't existed
Which is why he attempts to base his arguments on religious grounds.
(nothing personal against you but secularism is for me the most important thing for a free country)
I fully understood that.

[StdDev]

What about the "death penalty" , rather than as a penalty to influence ones behavior, but as a means of protecting society?
It seems obvious that the less people out killing others, the better off society is.

As for correlation vs. causation, it is true that correlation does not account for causation. However this obviously does not mean that correlation negates causation! There is common sense! ie. there is a positive correlation between ice cream sales and drowning deaths (really!! There is!), but common sense would tell us that neither of these phenomena are the cause of the other.. a more likely explanation is a 3rd phenomenon called “hot weather” which would reasonably account for both of the other phenomena (hot weather would be a reason for people to buy more ice cream as well as cause more people to go swimming which would explain the increase in drowning deaths.) This implies that there is a causal positive relationship between hot weather and drowning deaths.( and yes.. also between hot weather and ice cream sales).
In the example put forth by Subman1, it does not seem unreasonable that there is a causal inverse relationship between “the presence of death penalty” and number of killings/murders.
I am open minded about this though.. Skybird.. can you suggest some other variables which might effect the inverse relationship between DP and number of murders?

As for the moral debate on whether the DP should be imposed by the state, my feeling is that it is in many instances too inefficient!
People convicted of violent acts against society should probably be interned into an “organ farm” where they might in a small way repay society for their deeds.
I know that statement is going to revile some people but human life IS too precious to just throw away.. if a person has proven themselves too dangerous to allow to co-exist in society, then perhaps they can help society continue.. just not as a “person”.

[Fish]

"Thou shall not Kill",

Very well spoken, thou shall not kill!!

When you kill a murderer, you are one too. See your own quote.

[SUBMAN1]

"Thou shall not Kill",
Very well spoken, thou shall not kill!!

When you kill a murderer, you are one too. See your own quote.

Hardly. There is a big difference between murder and punishment. The Death Penalty in this case is punishment.

[Heibges]

What about:

Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that yee be not judged"

Luke 6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."

???

[SUBMAN1]

What about:

Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that yee be not judged"

Luke 6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."

???


That is for your neighbor, not the stranger that just murdered the rest of your family.

Besides, god allows defense of ones self, taking of a life if need be in that defense. SHould we just kill that man on the spot for killing your family? Or should we give him the ability to defend himself in court prior to killing him? To allow him to defend himself is the honorable thing to do is the answer and that is exactly what is going on here. Otherwise, armed men may just run the countryside, raping and pillaging and who is going to say cannot?

The point is, your passages are being taken out of context.

-S

[Heibges]

What about:

Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that yee be not judged"

Luke 6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."

???



That is for your neighbor, not the stranger that just murdered the rest of your family.

Besides, god allows defense of ones self, taking of a life if need be in that defense. SHould we just kill that man on the spot for killing your family? Or should we give him the ability to defend himself in court prior to killing him? To allow him to defend himself is the honorable thing to do is the answer and that is exactly what is going on here. Otherwise, armed men may just run the countryside, raping and pillaging and who is going to say cannot?

The point is, your passages are being taken out of context.

-S

Out of context? Just applies to neighbors? Not according to the Sermon on the Mount.

Matthew 5: 38 to 48

38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.
39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?
47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect

[Hitman]

There is an additional problem with death penalty which makes it many times as unfair as any other...if someone kills one person you can execute him and that will be a proportioned revenge (Let me emphasize: Revenge). But he kills more than one you can't kill him more than once so you are stuck with unfairness :damn: But that's always like that in criminal laws, where the theory behind them is retributive, and not restitutive like in civil laws.:hmm: There comes a moment where the offence is so big that it can't be retributed proportionally, and the fact that it could not be restituted was anyway a given in criminal laws.

Aside from that, the main argument that makes me stand against death penalty is practical: You can make an error and kill an innocent, which is way more unfair that not pubishing a guilty one IMHO.

EDITED:

Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that yee be not judged"

Luke 6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."


Hey Heibges..,where does that leave the people who earn their wage working as Judges in courts?? :hmm:

[Skybird]

This thread has good chances to become voted "revival of the day". :dead:

Sorry for the ambigous humour... :smug:

[The Avon Lady]

This thread has good chances to become voted "revival of the day". :dead:

Sorry for the ambigous humour... :smug:
And to think I ressurected it! :roll:

[Yahoshua]

Funny....you guys are butting heads over intepretation of the text and you don't even know the original language!!

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/popcorn-1.gif

Oh well, soda and popcorn to enjoy the show.

[waste gate]

Funny....you guys are butting heads over intepretation of the text and you don't even know the original language!!

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/popcorn-1.gif

Oh well, soda and popcorn to enjoy the show.

Nor that many even believe.:damn: Lest it suits their argument...........hypocracy at its liberal best.

[Heibges]

There is an additional problem with death penalty which makes it many times as unfair as any other...if someone kills one person you can execute him and that will be a proportioned revenge (Let me emphasize: Revenge). But he kills more than one you can't kill him more than once so you are stuck with unfairness :damn: But that's always like that in criminal laws, where the theory behind them is retributive, and not restitutive like in civil laws.:hmm: There comes a moment where the offence is so big that it can't be retributed proportionally, and the fact that it could not be restituted was anyway a given in criminal laws.

Aside from that, the main argument that makes me stand against death penalty is practical: You can make an error and kill an innocent, which is way more unfair that not pubishing a guilty one IMHO.

EDITED:

Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that yee be not judged"

Luke 6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."


Hey Heibges..,where does that leave the people who earn their wage working as Judges in courts?? :hmm:

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's...:lol:

[Yahoshua]

Ya know, while I'm enjoying the show I may as well fan the flames a bit:

Whaddya guys think of this?

(NIV)

17. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

So taking this into the context that "Jesus" obeyed the Torah, wouldn't you then need to apply the Torah in this circumstance? If so, what does it say? Lets' find out:

Exodus 21:12 -14, 18-19, 22-25, and 28-29 (from the Chumash)


Verse 12: If one strikes a man and he [the victim] dies, he shall be put to death.
Verse 13: But if he did not lie in wait [to ambush him] but G-d brought it to his hand, then I will designate for you a place, to which he can flee [and find refuge]. Verse 14: But if a man plots against his neighbor to kill him intentionally, you may [even] take him from My altar to put him to death.

.....


Verse 18: When men quarrel and one man hits his fellow with a stone or with [his] fist; and he [the victim] does not die but becomes bedridden, Verse 19: If he gets up and is able to walk on the outside on his own power, the one who struck him shall be acquitted. Still he must pay for his loss of work, and must pay for his complete cure.

.....


Verse 22: If men will fight and they strike a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry, but there is no fatal injury [to the woman], he [the guilty one] is to be punished with a [monetary] penalty when the husband demands compensation. He shall pay as determined by the judges.
Verse 23: However if there is a fatal injury, you shall give [up] a life for a life.
Verse 24: [Compensation of] an eye for an eye, [of] a tooth for a tooth, [of] a hand for a hand, [of] a foot for a foot. Verse 25: [Compensation of] a burn for a burn, [of] a wound for a wound, [of] a bruise for a bruise.

.....


Verse 28: If an ox gores a man or woman and the victim dies, the ox shall be stoned [to death], and its flesh may not be eaten. The owner of the ox shall go unpunished. Verse 29: But if the ox had gored yesterday and the day before, and a warning was given to its owner, but he had not taken proper precautions to guard it, and kills a man or a woman, the ox must be stoned, and the owner also shall die [by Divine decree].

http://www.tachash.org/texis/vtx/chverse/search.html

Be sure to read the commentary with it to get a better picture of the commands, their basic explanation and how it was meant to be applied.

I'm done fanning the flames.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/wasntme.gif

[Sailor Steve]

"Thou shall not Kill",

Very well spoken, thou shall not kill!!

When you kill a murderer, you are one too. See your own quote.
So, how does the soldier respond? If killing is killing, then shouldn't everyone refuse to join any army?

As Avon said, in the original language the injunction is against murder, not judicial punishment.

[P_Funk]

Funny....you guys are butting heads over intepretation of the text and you don't even know the original language!!

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/popcorn-1.gif

Oh well, soda and popcorn to enjoy the show.
Nor that many even believe.:damn: Lest it suits their argument...........hypocracy at its liberal best. Its not a matter of belief or convenience. Its a simple fact that the Western world was populated in its origins (thats national origins, not including those unfortunate natives) by people of christian faith. As such that faith continually shows up as a reasoning behind all sorts of things which are controversial. So what is a non-believer to do? Say "oh I'm sorry. I don't believe in this and as such I am incapable of reasoning as to why it is flawed logic or why it is misinterpreted by its own proponents, therefore I am permanently banished from discrediting any argument that has a faith based supportive argument included"? Just because you call yourself a christian doesn't mean that you have the monopoly on talking about it. If people continue to bring forth faith based reasons for why something should or should not be then all us pinko-commie liberal life hating state destroying baby raping pacifists are going to have to talk about it in more than just general terms.

[SUBMAN1]

Out of context? Just applies to neighbors? Not according to the Sermon on the Mount.

Matthew 5: 38 to 48

38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.
39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?
47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect
Again taken out of context - Can you name at least one of the 12 apostiles that carried a sword? Do you know he even used it in the presence of Jesus? The way you write, he would be forbidden from doing so. So again, you are again talking about your neighbor, whom you are supposed to forgive. It is even referenced in that passages you quote. Not about the stranger that comes in and murders your family. You have every right to put him to death.

-S

[Hitman]

Can you name at least one of the 12 apostiles that carried a sword?

St. Paul :D What have I won? :hmm:

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/6623/000270xg8.jpg

[Fish]

[, then shouldn't everyone refuse to join any army?



Only when you are religious..... then, yes. :up:
Its one of the ten commandments, the rest is sidetalk.

To make myself clear, if I saw you kill my daughter for example, I kill you at the spot.
Give me the time to think, I am not.
No dead penalty here since the after days of WW II.
Do we have a problem now.. no we haven't.

[SUBMAN1]

...No dead penalty here since the after days of WW II.
Do we have a problem now.. no we haven't.
Hahaha! Funny. THe majority of your countrymen in the Netherlands now favor the Death Penalty, and their numbers are rising. Guess you are now in the minority. There is talk of re-instating it. This is due to your crime problems.

-S

[The Avon Lady]

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/popcorn-1.gif

[SUBMAN1]

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/popcorn-1.gif

Can I have some popcorn too?

[SUBMAN1]

Can you name at least one of the 12 apostiles that carried a sword?
St. Paul :D What have I won? :hmm:


You can have some of AL's popcorn.

To go back to the scripture however, one thing that is stressed over and over again is that you should forgive, but you should also not simply tolerate or turn a blind eye. Our world however is becoming one of PC'ness and toleration to some of the craziest stuff you have ever heard. This is simply not acceptable.

-S

PS. I forgot to mention - Paul was supposedly pretty good with that thing too. Apparently one time with a simply swing, he was able to surgically remove a persons ear! Thats pretty precise if you ask me! Skybird might be impressed at that.

[The Avon Lady]

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/popcorn-1.gif

Can I have some popcorn too?
Corn-again Christians! :roll:

[Heibges]

Can you name at least one of the 12 apostiles that carried a sword?

St. Paul :D What have I won? :hmm:

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/6623/000270xg8.jpg

I think what he was referring to was Matthew 26:51-52

Matthew 26
51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.
52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

But again Jesus rebukes his apostles for using violence, so I am unsure what you mean.

The beauty of Christianity comes from it being a religion of victims. There is no earthly reward for following Christ.

[SUBMAN1]

I think what he was referring to was Matthew 26:51-52

Matthew 26
51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.
52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

But again Jesus rebukes his apostles for using violence, so I am unsure what you mean.

The beauty of Christianity comes from it being a religion of victims. There is no earthly reward for following Christ.

Sounds like you're preaching tolerance again. That is not proper in the religion of Christianity. You are told to fight for what you beleive in until such days as you are persecuted for your religion outright, in which case that is the day you lay down your sword and accept death.

I am not sure who is teaching you otherwise, but they are doing you a dis-service.

-S

[Hakahura]

"The Death Penalty...Is it right?"

No, it's wrong.

[Tchocky]

Um, why should a religion be the basis for a code of justice that applies to unbelievers?

Why are ye having this argument?

[August]

Um, why should a religion be the basis for a code of justice that applies to unbelievers?

Why are ye having this argument?

Maybe because the principles transcend religion? For example, the bible says "Thou shalt not steal". Should we therefore legalize stealing so athiests aren't offended?

[Camaero]

I am fine with the death penalty. They only problem is that there have been lots of people who were found guilty, but were really innocent. Just recently some guy was able to prove himself innocent after 11 or so years in the can. So for the death penalty, there has to be undeniable evidence.

Also, no terrorists should get the death penalty, that is too easy for them.:x

[Tchocky]

Maybe because the principles transcend religion? For example, the bible says "Thou shalt not steal". Should we therefore legalize stealing so athiests aren't offended?

Eh, no. Stealing can be wrong without immortal zombie intervention. And it is.

[August]

Maybe because the principles transcend religion? For example, the bible says "Thou shalt not steal". Should we therefore legalize stealing so athiests aren't offended?
Eh, no. Stealing can be wrong without immortal zombie intervention. And it is.

So what's your problem then?

[Sailor Steve]

"The Death Penalty...Is it right?"

No, it's wrong.
Is too! (I can make absolutist statements all day long)

[Camaero]

Maybe because the principles transcend religion? For example, the bible says "Thou shalt not steal". Should we therefore legalize stealing so athiests aren't offended?

Eh, no. Stealing can be wrong without immortal zombie intervention. And it is.

Every "bible" from every religion has many good ideas to live by. They also have very bad ideas, and if followed too closely can lead to a waste of your life, as well as other things.

In fact, everybody interprets them differently. There are so many different thoughts on it, I don't see how anyone can think they they are right, while everyone else got it wrong.

[Heibges]

I think what he was referring to was Matthew 26:51-52

Matthew 26
51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.
52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

But again Jesus rebukes his apostles for using violence, so I am unsure what you mean.

The beauty of Christianity comes from it being a religion of victims. There is no earthly reward for following Christ.

Sounds like you're preaching tolerance again. That is not proper in the religion of Christianity. You are told to fight for what you beleive in until such days as you are persecuted for your religion outright, in which case that is the day you lay down your sword and accept death.

I am not sure who is teaching you otherwise, but they are doing you a dis-service.

-S

You sound a little confused. What you are describing sounds like Islam, not Christianity.

[Tchocky]

Maybe because the principles transcend religion? For example, the bible says "Thou shalt not steal". Should we therefore legalize stealing so athiests aren't offended?
Eh, no. Stealing can be wrong without immortal zombie intervention. And it is.
So what's your problem then?

It's a strange way to discuss the Death Penalty, religion.
"problem" takes it too far, just silly to me.

[tenakha]

Who gives a damn about religion, the subject is death penalty, not religion...wether or not the bible (or any other religious text) allows you to execute a criminal is totally irrelevant. Religion and justice should never mixt up, unless you want to support islamic tribunals, jewish tribunals or christian tribunals, apply the shariah, restore the inquisition...

[SUBMAN1]

I think what he was referring to was Matthew 26:51-52

Matthew 26
51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.
52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

But again Jesus rebukes his apostles for using violence, so I am unsure what you mean.

The beauty of Christianity comes from it being a religion of victims. There is no earthly reward for following Christ.
Sounds like you're preaching tolerance again. That is not proper in the religion of Christianity. You are told to fight for what you beleive in until such days as you are persecuted for your religion outright, in which case that is the day you lay down your sword and accept death.

I am not sure who is teaching you otherwise, but they are doing you a dis-service.

-S
You sound a little confused. What you are describing sounds like Islam, not Christianity.
No. Islam promotes world domination, forced conversion, and if not converted, slavery - and they accomplish this through warfare. Christianity promotes fighting for ones beleive on their own turf against those that would force them to see things otherwise.

I do think you are a bit confused however.

-S

[tenakha]

I think what he was referring to was Matthew 26:51-52

Matthew 26
51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.
52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

But again Jesus rebukes his apostles for using violence, so I am unsure what you mean.

The beauty of Christianity comes from it being a religion of victims. There is no earthly reward for following Christ.
Sounds like you're preaching tolerance again. That is not proper in the religion of Christianity. You are told to fight for what you beleive in until such days as you are persecuted for your religion outright, in which case that is the day you lay down your sword and accept death.

I am not sure who is teaching you otherwise, but they are doing you a dis-service.

-S
You sound a little confused. What you are describing sounds like Islam, not Christianity.
No. Islam promotes world domination, forced conversion, and if not converted, slavery - and they accomplish this through warfare. Christianity promotes fighting for ones beleive on their own turf against those that would force them to see things otherwise.

I do think you are a bit confused however.

-S

no religion is better than another, even christianity led to this: http://whgbetc.com/mind/inquisition4.jpg

Islam is not the problem, extremism is

[SUBMAN1]

I am fine with the death penalty. They only problem is that there have been lots of people who were found guilty, but were really innocent. Just recently some guy was able to prove himself innocent after 11 or so years in the can. So for the death penalty, there has to be undeniable evidence.

A regrettable and unfortunate side effect that can't be avoided 100%. That is why the US system would rather see 10 guilty go free than to hang 1 innocent. However, this is not a perfect system and never will be. You must take the good with the bad scenario.

Other examples of the good with the bad - SOmeone may accidently hurt another through daily living, but should we stop living because an innocent may be hurt? Should we stop flying because 30 people month in the US will die? Should we stop driving because 40,000 people will die in cars this year? All unfortunate, but all neccesary for every day living.

Laws and the death penalty will trap an innocent at some point again in the future, and that person however unlikely (I have a better chance of winning the lottery 100 times over) may even end up being my own person, but I am willing to make/take that tinniest chance of sacrifice in favor of making sure the deterrance of capitol punishment remains in place for the benefit of my fellow man.

In the perfect world, we would not need this, but in this sick and twisted world, the punishment should fit the crime, and life in prison doesn't hit to the heart like the possibility that you could also be killed over a particular action. This deterrance banks on self preservation at its heart, and has been proven to work.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Um, why should a religion be the basis for a code of justice that applies to unbelievers?

Why are ye having this argument?

Besides the comments of August, to answer your question, religion was brought up as a topic to abolish capitol punsihment, which is why it is being disputed here.

-S

[Hakahura]

"The Death Penalty...Is it right?"

No, it's wrong.
Is too! (I can make absolutist statements all day long)

And all I tried to do was answer the question/title of the thread slightly more concisely than some without decending into religious dogma.

[SUBMAN1]

no religion is better than another, even christianity led to this:

Islam is not the problem, extremism is
Not quite. That was extremism at work when the Catholic church had a monopoly on religion. It is not written about in the Bible as a recommended way to punish your followers.

The problem with Islam and how it differs from the Bible is that their book is said to be the exact word of god, not an interpretation of what god said. And in this book, it is filled with passages about violence as the means to an end, so I don't think you are quite correct in this statement.

To begin researching mandatory Islam violence, start with Surah 9 in the Koran (just one book that starts to justify the Bin Ladens of the world). Islamic people are 'required' to extend out from their lands and force you to their will. It is not an option because it is what Allah commands.

-S

[Hakahura]

no religion is better than another, even christianity led to this:

Islam is not the problem, extremism is
Not quite. That was extremism at work when the Catholic church had a monopoly on religion. It is not written about in the Bible as a recommended way to punish your followers.

The problem with Islam and how it differs from the Bible is that their book is said to be the exact word of god, not an interpretation of what god said. And in this book, it is filled with passages about violence as the means to an end, so I don't think you are quite correct in this statement.

To begin researching mandatory Islam violence, start with Surah 9 in the Koran (just one book that starts to justify the Bin Ladens of the world). Islamic people are 'required' to extend out from their lands and force you to their will. It is not an option because it is what Allah commands.

-S

I would have to disagree with "The problem"

After all plenty of Christians behave as if their Bible is the word of God.

The Koran preaches pretty much the same message as the Bible.
"The problem" is all in the interprtations, which alas vary from the utopic to the despotic, regardless of the religion.

[Yahoshua]

The Koran preaches pretty much the same message as the Bible.


Far from it. The Q'uran isn't even consistent with itself, let alone with an extraneous "corroborating" literature.

[Hakahura]

The Koran preaches pretty much the same message as the Bible.


Far from it. The Q'uran isn't even consistent with itself, let alone with an extraneous "corroborating" literature.

Once again the very same could be said of the Bible.
It's all down to interpetations.

[Hakahura]

I now feel somewhat less concise than I did earlier, for me this thread is closed.

Until I feel the need to vent my spleen again:rotfl:

Remember it's cool to laugh at religion, after all God has a sense of humour does'nt she?

[Yahoshua]

Once again the very same could be said of the Bible.


The bible doesn't have glaring grammatical errors, direct contradictions with itself (as Islam does with Jews), or a following that demands world domination by force.

The bible is appropriately applied within the community that follows it, not outside that community.



It's all down to interpetations.

To a degree, yes, but when in placed within proper context and compared to similar circumstances or events there isn't much room for interpretation, but some people just decide to do it their way anyway.

[Hakahura]

Spleen venting time...

Yahoshua, you said

"The bible doesn't have glaring grammatical errors, direct contradictions with itself"

I'm confused by this statement, I have difficulty reconciling "An eye for an eye" with Jesus's message of forgivness and turning the other cheek.

As for grammatical errors... The Bible has been so badly translated from and into, so many different languages,that those who sought to spread the religion have introduced yet more contradictions of their own.

Follow your own religion, but don't use it as a basis for government or laws.
It's your religion, not mine or the persons next door.

[Camaero]

I now feel somewhat less concise than I did earlier, for me this thread is closed.

Until I feel the need to vent my spleen again:rotfl:

Remember it's cool to laugh at religion, after all God has a sense of humour does'nt she?

No, no he does not. You might wind up in hell now for even suggesting that God might be "funny". Good luck.

[Hakahura]

Camaero

Please I don't wish to cause overt offense, but look at the world we all live in.

Whomever/whatever created it must have had an amazing sense of humour.

[Camaero]

I was not being serious. ;)

Whomever/whatever created it had light humor alright... with a little sick and dark humor thrown in to keep things interesting.

[Hakahura]

:rotfl: At my own lack of wit:rotfl:

[Tchocky]

There are no jokes in the bible, and there ought to be.

Stoning the adulterer

"What are ya like, riding the whole lot of us?"

(something wrong with that, isn't there?)

[Camaero]

There are no jokes in the bible, and there ought to be.

Stoning the adulterer

"What are ya like, riding the whole lot of us?"

(something wrong with that, isn't there?)

Oh I there there are... but some people are too serious to catch them!

[SUBMAN1]

I would have to disagree with "The problem"

After all plenty of Christians behave as if their Bible is the word of God.

The Koran preaches pretty much the same message as the Bible.
"The problem" is all in the interprtations, which alas vary from the utopic to the despotic, regardless of the religion.
That's pretty far from the truth. The Bible is written by man and is the interpretation of what man says of what god said.

The Koran however is Mohammed in a trance and god talking through Mohammed and posssesing his body and everything is the exact word of God as written by Allah himself.

Big - actually huge difference.

-S

[P_Funk]

I am fine with the death penalty. They only problem is that there have been lots of people who were found guilty, but were really innocent. Just recently some guy was able to prove himself innocent after 11 or so years in the can. So for the death penalty, there has to be undeniable evidence.
A regrettable and unfortunate side effect that can't be avoided 100%. That is why the US system would rather see 10 guilty go free than to hang 1 innocent. However, this is not a perfect system and never will be. You must take the good with the bad scenario.

Other examples of the good with the bad - SOmeone may accidently hurt another through daily living, but should we stop living because an innocent may be hurt? Should we stop flying because 30 people month in the US will die? Should we stop driving because 40,000 people will die in cars this year? All unfortunate, but all neccesary for every day living.

Laws and the death penalty will trap an innocent at some point again in the future, and that person however unlikely (I have a better chance of winning the lottery 100 times over) may even end up being my own person, but I am willing to make/take that tinniest chance of sacrifice in favor of making sure the deterrance of capitol punishment remains in place for the benefit of my fellow man. Who are you to take that risk or sacrifice on behalf of another's life? As you say it is almost definitely someone else's life that will be wrongly taken. You can sacrifice your own life but to sacrifice a life on behalf of another faceless innocent is an abomination of everything that our nations stand for. The constitution demands that that not happen. That the rights of one man to live cannot knwoingly be sacrificed for some statistical benefit.

It is also a spurrious argument to say that since car accidents cause death yet we cannot stop driving, so too must the consequences of the death penalty be judged. That doesn't work out because the death penalty is not an essential of the economy and the growth of society. The same with daily living. Those examples are not relavent because they are outside the context of the calculated and delivered death penalty. The judiciary is deliberately seperate from the main of daily life. It is meant as an impartial method for looking at individual crime and punishment.

And to top it all off I could make an inverse argument that the life of an innocent is far too valuable to risk in favour of capital punishment therefore I am willing to sacrifice the lives the death penalty might save so that the justice system might not be responsible for an irreversible sentense. That however is not my position but it is just as viable as yours Subman. The way I differentiate it however is that when people die as a result of the death penalty we could prevent it, knowingly. It is directly our actions. However when someone is killed by a criminal because we didn't do one thing or another for good reason that is the responsibility of the person who killed. The alleged benefits, as yet unconfirmed, of the death penalty insist that there are phantom lives to be saved, something we judge by an absense of murder. That is difficult to count accurately. But the lives we kill through judicial imperfection is something we know of and can directly prevent.

[SUBMAN1]

"The bible doesn't have glaring grammatical errors, direct contradictions with itself"

I'm confused by this statement, I have difficulty reconciling "An eye for an eye" with Jesus's message of forgivness and turning the other cheek.


Two different books. Old Testament vs New. For Christians, the old is more a history lesson of what happened up to the New. The New however superceeds the Old.

Forgiveness is now mostley paramount, but not at the expense of your beliefs and well being.

-S

[Hakahura]

I have no dispute how either of these books purport to be written.

I said that.....

plenty of Christians behave as if their Bible is the word of God.

[Reaves]

Do unto others as you will have done unto you... or something.


Although here we don't have capital punishment. I'm pretty sure the last Australian hung was later found innocent. At least one of the last few certainly was.

Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. - Gandalf

[SUBMAN1]

Who are you to take that risk or sacrifice on behalf of another's life?
Someone who accepts the possible risks for the benefit of everyone.

As you say it is almost definitely someone else's life that will be wrongly taken. You can sacrifice your own life but to sacrifice a life on behalf of another faceless innocent is an abomination of everything that our nations stand for. The constitution demands that that not happen. That the rights of one man to live cannot knwoingly be sacrificed for some statistical benefit.
Hardly. The point is, if you can prove beyond a resonable doubt is your answer, and people who are a lot smarter than both you and I came up with it. Someone at some point will be caught up in the system, but there is nothing you can do about it since many more would die at the hands of killers if you remove the punishment. So in actuallity, you are savings lives.

It is also a spurrious argument to say that since car accidents cause death yet we cannot stop driving, so too must the consequences of the death penalty be judged. That doesn't work out because the death penalty is not an essential of the economy and the growth of society. The same with daily living. Those examples are not relavent because they are outside the context of the calculated and delivered death penalty. The judiciary is deliberately seperate from the main of daily life. It is meant as an impartial method for looking at individual crime and punishment.
Wrong answer. It is very much a strain on the economy and budgets of the state, and abolishing it actually has a negative impact on the growth of society. Murders rise, people become paranoid, economy and loss of productive growth all suffer.



And to top it all off I could make an inverse argument that the life of an innocent is far too valuable to risk in favour of capital punishment therefore I am willing to sacrifice the lives the death penalty might save so that the justice system might not be responsible for an irreversible sentense. That however is not my position but it is just as viable as yours Subman. The way I differentiate it however is that when people die as a result of the death penalty we could prevent it, knowingly. It is directly our actions. However when someone is killed by a criminal because we didn't do one thing or another for good reason that is the responsibility of the person who killed. The alleged benefits, as yet unconfirmed, of the death penalty insist that there are phantom lives to be saved, something we judge by an absense of murder. That is difficult to count accurately. But the lives we kill through judicial imperfection is something we know of and can directly prevent.
No, because you re-enforce the behavior. You have taken a crime with severe consequences and made it worse by removing the consequences. Its stupid to think that you are saving lives by not taking lives of those that deserve nothing better. It is unfortunate that an innocent (even though I bet this is such a rarity, it is almost uncountable) may get caught up in it, but in a perfect world, this would not only not happen, in that same perfect world, no one would also be getting murdered.

My one problem I have right now though - every effort should be taken to prove or disprove someones guilt. No one should be denied DNA testing if it could possibly help their case - period. But make no mistake, if you can't prove that you are not guilty after a jury has convicted you, and you went through the mandatory round of appeals (You have no choice but for automatic appeals in this country), then tough. Chances are at this point 99.9999999999999% that you did it.

A thought to ponder:"While some [death penalty] abolitionists try to face down the results of their disastrous experiment and still argue to the contrary, the...[data] concludes that a substantial deterrent effect has been observed...In six months, more Americans are murdered than have killed by execution in this entire century...Until we begin to fight crime in earnest [by using the death penalty], every person who dies at a criminal's hands is a victim of our inaction." Karl Spence

-S

[SUBMAN1]

I have no dispute how either of these books purport to be written.

I said that.....

plenty of Christians behave as if their Bible is the word of God.

Can't argue that. Some whackos out there, even in Christianity too.

[Yahoshua]

.....Two different books. Old Testament vs New. For Christians, the old is more a history lesson of what happened up to the New. The New however superceeds the Old.

Forgiveness is now mostley paramount, but not at the expense of your beliefs and well being.

-S

Nope.

Mt. 5:17-19
17. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Romans 3:31
31. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

Romans 7:12
12. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

I Cor. 14:37b
37. ...... let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command.

(The "New Testament" wasn't compiled until many centuries after Pauls' death, so the only commands he could've been speaking of is the Torah).

And finally: Acts 24:14

14However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets,


I believe I've made my case. http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/popcorn-1.gif

[P_Funk]

Who are you to take that risk or sacrifice on behalf of another's life?
Someone who accepts the possible risks for the benefit of everyone. That isn't an answer. Thats just reaffirming your position. You didn't answer how you feel the right to take other people's lives into your own hands.

Someone at some point will be caught up in the system, but there is nothing you can do about it since many more would die at the hands of killers if you remove the punishment. So in actuallity, you are savings lives. You assume that deterrance is 100% confirmed, which it is not conclusively, and secondly you assume that the punishment is legitimate because it exists. The correlation between a healthy society and the death penalty is not absolute. There are plenty of exmaples to contradict the assertion.

It is also a spurrious argument to say that since car accidents cause death yet we cannot stop driving, so too must the consequences of the death penalty be judged. That doesn't work out because the death penalty is not an essential of the economy and the growth of society. The same with daily living. Those examples are not relavent because they are outside the context of the calculated and delivered death penalty. The judiciary is deliberately seperate from the main of daily life. It is meant as an impartial method for looking at individual crime and punishment.
Wrong answer. It is very much a strain on the economy and budgets of the state, and abolishing it actually has a negative impact on the growth of society. Murders rise, people become paranoid, economy and loss of productive growth all suffer. Wheres your proof? The United States spends millions on incarceration every year and is as such the most incarcerated nation in the world. The lack of preventative action in the US in favour of reactive policies cost significantly more. That is the drain on budgets. The economic impacts itself are not correct. If the lack of a death penalty will cause economic instability why then is Canada's dollar bridging on equalizing with the American dollar? Why is our economy booming and why are our crime rates significantly lower than the US's while we haven't had the death penalty since 1976?

You offer no proof of this rather broad assertion. And certainly you can't proove it.



And to top it all off I could make an inverse argument that the life of an innocent is far too valuable to risk in favour of capital punishment therefore I am willing to sacrifice the lives the death penalty might save so that the justice system might not be responsible for an irreversible sentense. That however is not my position but it is just as viable as yours Subman. The way I differentiate it however is that when people die as a result of the death penalty we could prevent it, knowingly. It is directly our actions. However when someone is killed by a criminal because we didn't do one thing or another for good reason that is the responsibility of the person who killed. The alleged benefits, as yet unconfirmed, of the death penalty insist that there are phantom lives to be saved, something we judge by an absense of murder. That is difficult to count accurately. But the lives we kill through judicial imperfection is something we know of and can directly prevent.
No, because you re-enforce the behavior. You have taken a crime with severe consequences and made it worse by removing the consequences. Its stupid to think that you are saving lives by not taking lives of those that deserve nothing better. It is unfortunate that an innocent (even though I bet this is such a rarity, it is almost uncountable) may get caught up in it, but in a perfect world, this would not only not happen, in that same perfect world, no one would also be getting murdered.
Its not re-enforcing the bad behavior just because you draw back a penalty. If thats the case then all cases where the state over steps its bounds should not be reversed for fear of sending a message that the crime is acceptable. The penalty is not being removed. Life in prison is its own penalty with deep consequences, so don't overdramatize it. And again we see the fundamental disrespect for universal life. "Those that don't deserve better". They get to expect life because its their right to it, regardless. Its at that point that you and I cannot meet anywhere because the fundamental philosophy of life and the rights in the constitution are seen differently by us two.

And I don't discount any small chance that an innocent be killed because to you and me 99.9 is a very small chance but in a country of millions and a world of billions that number doesn't end up being too big for more than a few people. I think you overestimate the effectiveness and unbiased nature of your judiciary. So many innocents have been found guilty of severe crimes. It only stands to reason that some of those innocent will find their way onto death row. With how District Attorneys and Judges are politicized in the US the demand for the Death penalty exceeds its need in many cases. Its not so simple as to say "tough luck". It isn't luck if we are in control at every level.


A thought to ponder:"While some [death penalty] abolitionists try to face down the results of their disastrous experiment and still argue to the contrary, the...[data] concludes that a substantial deterrent effect has been observed...In six months, more Americans are murdered than have killed by execution in this entire century...Until we begin to fight crime in earnest [by using the death penalty], every person who dies at a criminal's hands is a victim of our inaction." Karl Spence

-S And I reply
When in Gregg v. Georgia the Supreme Court gave its seal of approval to capital punishment, this endorsement was premised on the promise that capital punishment would be administered with fairness and justice. Instead, the promise has become a cruel and empty mockery. If not remedied, the scandalous state of our present system of capital punishment will cast a pall of shame over our society for years to come. We cannot let it continue.
--Justice Thurgood Marshall, 1990 Evidence of innocence is irrelevant!
--Mary Sue Terry, former Attorney General of Virginia (replying to an appeal to introduce new evidence from a prisoner sentenced to death). How about this one.
Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind.
--John Donne

[SUBMAN1]

Nope.

Mt. 5:17-19
17. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Romans 3:31
31. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

Romans 7:12
12. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

I Cor. 14:37b
37. ...... let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command.

(The "New Testament" wasn't compiled until many centuries after Pauls' death, so the only commands he could've been speaking of is the Torah).

And finally: Acts 24:14

14However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets,


I believe I've made my case. http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/popcorn-1.gif
That is not a Christian religion then, but probably more of a Jewish one if you follow the Old testament over the new or equal to the new. This is a fullfilling, but it is also a replacement. It is true that many of the books were written after Jesus walked the Earth, but they are a compilation of what he has said, and instead of replacing, I would say it supercedes the old. That would probably be a better way of describing it.

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." — Jeremiah 31:31-34
This breaks the old. But there is plenty more to support the breaking of the old as well. I think about 30+ or more versus in total.

Also, the old covenent is called 'old and flawed' and replaced.

-S

PS. SOme more info on the subject:

With God's promises to a holy nation so plenteous but with Israel's sins so evident, the Old Testament prophets were faced with a dilemma: do God's promises to Israel remain intact, and if so, how can they? Though the prophets without exception envision God first punishing Israel because of its sin and then glorifying it, it was Jeremiah, in particular, who spelled out in covenant terms God's solution to their problem: God would enter into a "new covenant" relationship with Israel and Judah, forgive his people their sin, and write his righteous law in their hearts (Isaiah 53 teaches, of course, that this forgiveness is the outcome of the vicarious atoning death of God's Suffering Servant): "The day will come," says the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. This covenant will not be like the one I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand and brought them out of Egypt. They broke that covenant, though I loved them as a husband loves his wife," says the Lord.
"But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day," says the Lord. "I will put my laws in their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people...And I will forgive their wickedness and will never again remember their sins." (Jer 31:31-34, New Living Translation)
The Old Testament period closed with the last of the writing prophets still exhorting the returnees from Babylon: "Remember to obey the instructions of my servant Moses, all the laws and regulations that I gave him on Mount Sinai for all Israel" (Mal 4:4). Obviously, this returned remnant was not the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy. How then was Jeremiah's prophecy fulfilled? Or has it been fulfilled yet? How precisely does the New Testament portray its fulfillment?

So I guess you can say - the 10 commandments still stand, but that is it. There is more to this story if you care to read. Let me know. I'll just post it anyway:

One New Covenant or Two?

The phrase "new covenant" does not occur again in canonical Scripture until the night of the last Passover seder that our Lord ate with his disciples, on which solemn occasion he spoke of the cup as "the new covenant in my blood" (Luke 22:20; see 1 Cor 11:25). For good reason one might conclude that here is incontrovertible testimony that the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 found its inaugural fulfillment in the death of Jesus Christ and that those who through simple faith presently partake of the benefits of Christ's purchased redemption are the people described in that passage. J. Dwight Pentecost writes: "The disciples who heard the Lord refer to the new covenant in the upper room the night before His death would certainly have understood Him to be referring to the new covenant of Jeremiah 31."1 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#_ftn1) But if this is so, Dwight Pentecost, John Walvoord, and Charles Ryrie, all three being leading dispensational scholars at Dallas Theological Seminary in their time, would have had to conclude that the disciples misunderstood Christ's sacramental assertion for they affirm that there are two separate and distinct new covenants referred to in Holy Scripture, namely, the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 for Israel and the new covenant of Luke 22 for the church, the latter covenant being completely unknown to revelation prior to Christ's last seder statement.
Pentecost himself divides the references to the two new covenants in the New Testament into their respective groups: "The references in the gospels and in Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; 10:29; and 13:20...refer to the new covenant of the church, Hebrews 8:7-13 and 10:16...refer to the new covenant with Israel, and Hebrews 12:24...refer[s], perhaps, to both, emphasizing the fact of the mediation accomplished and the covenant program established without designating its recipients." According to Pentecost's division of passages, the New Testament contains only two clear references to Jeremiah's new covenant to be fulfilled at some time future to the church age with Israel, namely, Hebrews 8:7-13 and 10:16; all the rest pertain to the new covenant first spoken of by Jesus and being fulfilled presently in this age with the church.2 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#_ftn2) An examination of these two passages, however, will prove that they, like all the others, point to a present fulfillment of the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 by the church today and that there is, in fact, only one new covenant referred to in Scripture.
Hebrews 8:7-13

In this passage the author of Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34 in its entirety in connection with his comment that Christ, the mediator, by his death "guarantees for us a better covenant with God, based on better promises" (Heb 8:6), which better promises he then finds summarily given in the Jeremiah quotation itself. B. F. Westcott in his commentary on this letter concurs that these "better promises" are "such as are contained in the divine description which follows."3 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#_ftn3) If this is so, then Hebrews 8:7-13 refers to the new covenant that is being fulfilled in this age by the church. Oswald T. Allis declares in his Prophecy and the Church: "It would be hard to find a clearer reference to the gospel age in the Old Testament than in these verses in Jeremiah; and the writer of Hebrews obviously appeals to it as such."4 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#_ftn4) It would appear, then, that John Walvoord is grasping at straws when he writes:
The argument hangs on the point that the Mosaic covenant was not faultless—was never intended to be an everlasting covenant (Heb. 8:7). In confirmation of this point, the new covenant of Jeremiah is cited at length, proving that the Old Testament itself anticipated the end of the Mosaic law in that a new covenant is predicted to supplant it. The writer of Hebrews singles out of the entire quotation the one word new and argues that this would automatically make the Mosaic covenant old (Heb. 8:13). A further statement is made that the old covenant is "becoming old" and is "nigh unto vanishing away." It should be noted that nowhere in this passage is the new covenant with Israel declared to be in force. The only argument is that which was always true—the prediction of a new covenant automatically declares the Mosaic covenant as a temporary, not an eternal covenant.5 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#_ftn5)
Is it feasible that the author of Hebrews quoted the entire Jeremiah passage (131 words in the Nestle edition as well as in the Aland edition of the Greek New Testament) just to use only the one word "new" that is in it, and then to prove by this one word only the fact that the Old Testament anticipated the passing of the Mosaic economy? Is it not much more likely that his purpose, as it is throughout his letter, is to show his readers that what Jesus did at Calvary and is presently doing for them annuls the Mosaic economy here and now? Does he not, then, also quote Jeremiah to spell out in summary fashion the "better promises" to which he alludes in 8:6 that are clearly in force because of Jesus' mediatorship? How he could have been clearer in his teaching that Christ's "better covenant" by which he obtained his present high priestly ministry (Heb 8:1-6) was fulfilling Jeremiah's prophecy is, indeed, difficult to see.
Hebrews 10:16

This verse follows a discussion of the replacing of the Old Testament sacrificial system by the once-for-all offering of the body of Jesus Christ (see 10:10, 12) and is again a quotation of Jeremiah 31:33.
In 10:9 appears the somewhat enigmatic statement: "He cancels the first in order to establish the second." According to the New Scofield Reference Bible this verse teaches that the new covenant "secures the perpetuity, future conversion, and blessing of a repentant Israel, with whom the New Covenant will yet be ratified" (1317). But where such teaching lies in the verse will elude an observant reader. Commentators are generally agreed that the "first" refers to the inadequate Old Testament sacrificial system discussed in 10:1-8.6 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#_ftn6) Westcott interprets the "second" as "the fulfillment of the divine will by rational self-devotion," while Owen regards it as "the way of the expiation of sin, and of the completed sanctification of the church by the coming [see 10:5, 7, 9], and mediation, and sacrifice of Christ." I prefer Owen's understanding of "second" because of its fullness, but, regardless of one's preference here, it is clear that the author of Hebrews stresses throughout this section that in Christ's incarnation (10:5) and self-sacrifice (10:12, 14) he fulfilled God's will (10:7, 9), in which will the Christian is sanctified (10:10). And he expressly states in 10:14: "For by that one offering he perfected forever all those whom is making holy." The Holy Spirit, the author continues, also testifies to us of Christ's work of perfecting sinners (10:15a). And how does the Holy Spirit do this? Precisely by adding further testimony to the witness of Psalm 40:6-8 (see 10:5-7). And this testimony the author of Hebrews finds in Jeremiah 31:31-34:
First [the Holy Spirit] says,
"This is the new covenant I will make with my people on that day, says the Lord:
I will put my laws in their hearts so they will understand them,
and I will write them on their minds so they will obey them."
Then he adds:
"I will never again remember their sins and lawless deeds."
The author of Hebrews concludes from the promise of removal of sin in Jeremiah 31:34: "Now when sins have been forgiven, there is no need to offer any more sacrifices" (10:18), a conclusion previously implied in 10:14. There can be no doubt that Jeremiah's prophecy, according to the author of Hebrews, does have reference to this present age in its forecasting a time when God would completely exonerate the sinner who is the beneficiary of the promises of the new covenant and do away with the Old Testament sacrificial system by the death-work of Christ.
Since the two passages that Dwight Pentecost refers to a yet-to-be-fulfilled new covenant in the future with Israel in actuality refer to the covenant's "better promises" that are being fulfilled in this present age, there is no evidence for two new covenants. Pentecost's bifurcation of the several New Testament references to the new covenant into two groups, one for Israel and one for the church, is purely arbitary, done only in the interest of supporting the dispensational contention that the Old Testament did not speak of this age. It is much truer to Scripture to affirm that Jeremiah's prophecy speaks of but one new covenant, legally instituted by Christ by his coming and death and presently being fulfilled by the building of Christ's church in this age.
The Old Testament Covenant Program and the New Testament Church

The postulation of two entirely separate and distinct new covenants by classic dispensationalist scholars, as we have said, is the result of a larger error: their determination to allow no connection whatever to exist between the Old Testament covenant program and the New Testament church. To illustrate how completely is the imagined dichotomy between Old Testament revelation and this present church age, I quote C. I. Scofield:
When Christ appeared to the Jewish people, the next thing, in the order of revelation as it then stood, should have been the setting up of the Davidic kingdom. The long period...of the outcalling of the Church...was as yet locked up in the secret counsels of God."7 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#_ftn7)
But the New Testament knows of no such dichotomy and indicates that this present age of the church was seen, though its details were not as clear as now, by the Old Testament prophets (Eph 3:5). Note the following New Testament data:
1. According to Peter in Acts 2:16-21 Joel predicted the appearance of this present church age.
2. Peter also expressly declares in Acts 3:24 that "starting with Samuel, every prophet spoke about what is happening today.
3. Completely apart from James' citation of Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:15-18 as a composite prophetic portrayal of the calling of the Gentiles to salvation in this age, the fact that the church leaders in Acts 15 would even entertain for debate the question whether Gentiles coming into the church should be circumcised or not implies that they regarded the church of which they were members as "covenant Israel." In this they agreed with Christ himself for, since in Jewish thinking all mankind was comprised of either Jews or pagan Gentiles, when Jesus declared that the church should regard him who refused church discipline as "a pagan" (Matt 18:17) it is obvious that Jesus was viewing his church as "Israel."
4. In Acts 26:22-23 Paul declares before King Agrippa that he taught "nothing except what the prophets and Moses said would happen—that the Messiah would suffer and be the first to rise from the dead as a light Jews to and Gentiles alike" It is evident then that the Old Testament prophets spoke of this present age.
5. In 1 Peter 1:10-12, after declaring that the Old Testament prophets had prophesied of the "grace that should come to you," that is, Christians of this age, and had diligently searched into the question of the time and circumstances of Christ's suffering and subsequent glory, Peter informs his readers that God revealed to his prophets that "these things would not happen during their lifetime, but many years later, during yours"—you to whom "this good news has been announced...in the power of the Holy Spirit sent from heaven." Clearly Peter believed that the Old Testament prophets knew about and predicted the objective saving events of this age.
6. While it is true that the Jeremiah prophecy states that the new covenant was to be made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, it must be noted that the church was in fact originally wholly Jewish, only later becoming predominantly Gentile through the ministry of the apostle Paul.
7. An interpretation that affirms that the church is presently fulfilling Jeremiah's new covenant must necessarily see an organic continuity between the people of God in both the Old and New Testaments. But this is precisely what Paul teaches in the olive-tree passage in Romans 11:16-24 and in the commonwealth-of-Israel passage in Ephesians 2:11-20.
8. The interpretation that I am advocating here must also necessarily hold that the church today is true spiritual Israel. But again, this is precisely what Paul calls the church in Galatians 6:16, and he implies as much in his references to the saints of the church as the "seed of Abraham" (Gal 3:9, 29; Rom 9:6-8). In Philippians 3:3 he describes those who worship God in the spirit, who rejoice in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh as "the circumcision," that is, as true Israelites (see Rom 2:26-29).
In light of these data it is an act of futility to deny the connection that Holy Scripture makes between Jeremiah's prophecy and the New Testament church.8 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#_ftn8) But nothing in this interpretation of the new covenant means that God is through dealing today with Jewish people. There is an elect remnant among racial Israel (Rom 11:1-7). Therefore, throughout this age elect Jews who "turn from their unbelief" are grafted into the good olive tree of the church (Rom 11:23). Since this is so, the new covenant of Jeremiah applies soteriologically today both to Jews and to Gentiles.9 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#_ftn9)
The "Better Promises" of Jeremiah 31

Few Bible students today would doubt that Jesus was referring to Jeremiah 31:31 when he spoke of the cup as "the new covenant in my blood." By his vicarious death-work at Calvary, Jesus inaugurated the prophesied new covenant of Jeremiah, and all who believe in Christ—among both Jews and Gentiles—receive the spiritual blessings foretold in that covenant. Paul declares in 2 Corinthians 3:6 that he and the Corinthian believers were "ministers of the new covenant." And the author of Hebrews (who I happen to believe was Paul), as we have seen, teaches that Jesus by his death became the mediator of the new covenant (9:15; 12:24) that is based upon "better promises" than the old covenant and that insures the perfection of the sanctified. What are these better promises? In a word, once-for-all forgiveness and sanctification!
A close reading of the Jeremiah prophecy will show that the emphasis throughout is on the spiritual preparation of a people to be the people of God. This preparation is divinely accomplished (see the "I will...") through the judicial forgiveness of their sins and the working in them of an internal righteousness and desire to keep the commandments of God. Both aspects of this preparation are made their possession, we discover from New Testament theology in general, through the obedient life and the atoning death, resurrection, and intercessory ministry of Jesus Christ and the sanctifying ministry of his indwelling Spirit. But writing as he was to Jewish Christians who understandably might have had little awareness of the indwelling Spirit's ministry since Old Testament revelation was concerned primarily with a religion reflected in an objective priesthood, fleshly sacrifices, and a visible tabernacle and temple, the author of Hebrews emphasized Christ's high priestly ministry as an advancement over and ultimate fulfillment of the Levitical system in all its aspects. This is not to say that he neglects completely the Spirit's ministry (see Heb 6:4; 10:29); it simply is to point up that the author's main purpose is to contrast the Levitical system and Christ's mediatorial work, which work he sees (and which work in truth is) the ultimate ground of both the Christian's justification and his sanctification. A clear distinction, then, between Christ's work and the Spirit's work is not drawn in this letter; rather, the author attributes both operations to Christ's active and passive obedience: "He came once for all time, at the end of the age, to remove the power of sin forever by his sacrificial death for us" (Heb 9:26); "...our High Priest offered himself to God as one sacrifice for sins, good for all time. Then he sat down at the place of highest honor at God's right hand" (Heb 10:12); "what God want is for us to be made holy by the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time" (Heb 10:10; "...by that one offering he perfected forever all those whom he is making holy" (Heb 10:14). Thus the author of Hebrews traces the "better promises" of Jeremiah's prophecy to their fulfillment in the justifying and sanctifying work of our great High Priest, Christ Jesus, by whom "God alone made it possible for [us] to be in Christ Jesus" (1 Cor 1:30).

[Yahoshua]

Yermiyahu (Jerimiah) 31:33-34 already refutes half of your argument right there.

33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD.
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,'

Which law is being referred to here other than Torah?

Mt. 12:9-12

9. Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10. and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" 11. He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12. How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."

Mt. 22: 34-40

34. Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36. "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37. Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38. This is the first and greatest commandment. 39. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

And another issue to deal with is the fact that "Jesus" himself closely followed the Torah and was knowledgeable of it as well as the Talmud (as signified by the presence of MANY Talmudic idioms and saying throughout his speeches).

Luke 14:1-5
1. One Sabbath, when Jesus went to eat in the house of a prominent Pharisee, he was being carefully watched. 2. There in front of him was a man suffering from dropsy. 3. Jesus asked the Pharisees and experts in the law, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?" 4. But they remained silent. So taking hold of the man, he healed him and sent him away. 5. Then he asked them, "If one of you has a son or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull him out?"

Compared to Exodus 23:5 and Exodus 23:12

5: If you see the donkey of your enemy lying under its burden, and you might not want to help him, make every effort to help him.

......

[B]12: You may do your work six days, but on the seventh day you must cease; so that your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your female slave may be refreshed, and [also] the stranger.


"Jesus" also observed the sabbath and celebrated the festivals such as Pesach (Passover), Sukkot, etc. all of which are events that are commanded to be observed in the Torah. Why would he observe customs and traditions that you claim have been abolished?

Mt. 26:17-18

17. On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?" 18. He replied, "Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, 'The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house.' "

Luke 2:41-42

.....41. Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. 42. When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to the custom.


Exodus 23:14-16
14: Three times a year you are to celebrate with Me.

15: You must keep the festival of Matzos. You must eat matzos for seven days, as I have commanded you. [This festival must be celebrated] at the appointed time, during the month when the grain is ripened, for in it [at this time] you went out of Egypt. Do not appear before My Presence empty-handed. 16: [You must also keep] the Festival of Harvest, [with bringing bikurim] the first fruits of your labor, which you planted in the field; [also] the Festival of Ingathering, at the close of the year, when you gather in [the fruits of] your labor from the field.


So how do you explain that your messiah has come to abolish the very scriptures that he himself followed and obeyed even as a child all throughout his adulthood? And when he is asked about the tribulation (as you call it), why does he encourage those who will be fleeing persecution to pray that their escape will not take place during the Sabbath if your claim is that the Sabbath has been abolished?

Mt. 24:20
.....20. Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath......


Lastly, I believe you've misunderstood the entire concept of "doing away with the old" in order to make way for the new.

What I notice as a consistent theme is the emphasis of making the Torah a law both of heart AND mind. Meaning that the "old" covenant emphasized action expecting the people of Israel to follow the Torah and incorporate the nature of the Torah into themselves. But we're selfish, and stubborn; and we broke the Torah again and again, but the Torah itself was never declared "abolished."

What is really meant here is a RE-newal of the covenant, to inscribe the Torah on our conscience as well as our actions. The Torah has not and will not be abolished until heaven and earth are no longer, this was quite clear in Mt. 5:17-19 and merely repeats the same affirmation all throughout the Tanakh and even the "New" testament.

Romans 2:13
13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

[Radtgaeb]

Just my 2 cents.

I am a Christian, but the rest of the world (for some enigmatic reason) thinks that all Christians are gun-toting, NASCAR watching Bush voters that support Capital Punishment. In addition, we are apparently all ignorant people who place no value on human life.

*"incorrect" buzzer noise*

I'm probably one of the more liberal Baptists you'll ever meet in your lifetime. Okay, I support gun rights, that's about it.

Death Penalty - Christians are (or should) be taught in scripture to "turn the other cheek", and that killing another for their sins is totally not the right way to go. For some reason, most Americans get turned on at the idea of a guy getting killed for killing someone else. I see it as total and complete waste of effort! All it is is personal revenge, which, no matter who you are, is completely unacceptable: legally, morally, ethically...whatever. It's not a good thing. Death penalty = :down:.

Gay/Lesbian rights = Kind of a touchy issue. Yes, The Bible specifically states that "for a man to lie with another man" is an unholy act. BUT, in America, we have outlined separation of church and state (which, by the way, I support because otherwise, we'd be just like Iran). If people want to live like that, it's not my right to tell them "No, you can't do that because I don't approve." If I can start arresting people for getting on my nerves and taking actions that I don't agree with, our prisons would be even more crowded than they already are. No, I don't like the idea of gay marriage...but who am I to make/support a law that denies people basic rights as a citizen of The United States of America? After all, we were granted the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness. If someone is "happy" being with a member of the same sex, then I have no right as an American to deny the right of another American. Does any of that make sense?

Bush= :rotfl:...that's about all I have to say about that....you really don't want to get me started on a bigger rant.

[Yahoshua]

\Death Penalty - Christians are (or should) be taught in scripture to "turn the other cheek", and that killing another for their sins is totally not the right way to go.

Hi and welcome to the forum. Could you post your support for this belief?

[micky1up]

how dare you quote from the world best selling fiction book

[Radtgaeb]

\Death Penalty - Christians are (or should) be taught in scripture to "turn the other cheek", and that killing another for their sins is totally not the right way to go.
Hi and welcome to the forum. Could you post your support for this belief?
Well, take it straight from the 10 commandments. "Thou shalt not kill." That pretty much sums it up. No matter if they committed a heinous crime or not, it's vengeful punishment and IS murder.

John 8:7 = The adulteress was about to be stoned, Jesus said to them "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.". Who are we to take a life when we've all done something wrong in our lives? I'm not saying give the creep a chance...but life behind bars NO parole would be a fine deterrant.

Personally, yes, I did take some satisfaction when I watched the news of Tim McVeigh's execution. I really did think he deserved to die. But just because I FELT that way, doesn't mean that it was the right action. The heart, weather you're religioius or not, is decietful.

And please don't go playing the "but my transgressions aren't murder!" because that's been obliterated, if you put any credibility into The Bible as I do. All sins are equal in magnitude.

[Skybird]

Secularism also means not only to keep politics and religion two separate things, but to keep religion and legislation separate, too. Refering to the Bible is not better or worse than having the Sharia, which also rejects to keep politics, legislative and religion separate, and sees itself as motivation for and guardian of the right way of believing.

So the Bible hopefully is not seriously the basis of western law. and in fact, it isn't.

If the laws are better off with or without religious references is not the issue. Secularism is a decision of principle. You can't switch it on and off according to your opportunistic needs in a given situation. You either follow secularism, then you do it in totality, or you don'T follow it at all. Else, legislation turns into arbitrariness - not good.

[U-533]

It's right!

None of you will change my mind!

Death penalty rules!

[Radtgaeb]

Secularism also means not only to keep politics and religion two separate things, but to keep religion and legislation separate, too. Refering to the Bible is not better or worse than having the Sharia, which also rejects to keep politics, legislative and religion separate, and sees itself as motivation for and guardian of the right way of believing.

So the Bible hopefully is not seriously the basis of western law. and in fact, it isn't.

If the laws are better off with or without religious references is not the issue. Secularism is a decision of principle. You can't switch it on and off according to your opportunistic needs in a given situation. You either follow secularism, then you do it in totality, or you don'T follow it at all. Else, legislation turns into arbitrariness - not good.

I agree with you entirely. But listen...is killing someone a wrong thing to do? Religious or not, people generally agree that murderers suck. How is capital punishment different?

[Sailor Steve]

Is it wrong for a police officer to shoot someone in the line of duty? Is killing to protect someone directly better or worse than killing someone to prevent the possiblity of them murdering again? I agree that one of the best arguments against the death penalty is the chance that the person being executed might not be the guilty party, but in a case where there is no longer any doubt I'm all for it. I was glad to see Ted Bundy go.

[Radtgaeb]

Is it wrong for a police officer to shoot someone in the line of duty? Is killing to protect someone directly better or worse than killing someone to prevent the possiblity of them murdering again? I agree that one of the best arguments against the death penalty is the chance that the person being executed might not be the guilty party, but in a case where there is no longer any doubt I'm all for it. I was glad to see Ted Bundy go.

Police firing in the line of duty is a totally different subject. If an officer is in a position where the suspect has pulled a gun on him, he is completely entitled to defend himself in any way, shape, or form...just as you and I are entitled to if someone broke into our house.

As for "keeping killers off the streets". The justice system needs to take a more literal understanding of the term "Life without parole".

[Skybird]

Secularism also means not only to keep politics and religion two separate things, but to keep religion and legislation separate, too. Refering to the Bible is not better or worse than having the Sharia, which also rejects to keep politics, legislative and religion separate, and sees itself as motivation for and guardian of the right way of believing.

So the Bible hopefully is not seriously the basis of western law. and in fact, it isn't.

If the laws are better off with or without religious references is not the issue. Secularism is a decision of principle. You can't switch it on and off according to your opportunistic needs in a given situation. You either follow secularism, then you do it in totality, or you don'T follow it at all. Else, legislation turns into arbitrariness - not good.

I agree with you entirely. But listen...is killing someone a wrong thing to do? Religious or not, people generally agree that murderers suck. How is capital punishment different?

As I often have argued, "death penalty" is a contradiction in itself. In modern law, where it is not about revenge (at least it should not be about revenge), a penalty is a measurement by which the behavior and acting of an offender should be sanctioned, hoping that by suffering from that "aversive stimulus" he will not do it again. If you kill the offender, he cannot chnage his behavior, nor experience an aversive stimulus - for that it is a precondition that he survives the procedure. So rejecting someone freedom, or force him to suffer material losses or physical pain, are penalty. Executing him is not.

I am not naive, death and dying is a fact of live, and so is that sometimes man kills man. I could imagine to kill offenders under very strict and serious conditions, not as a penalty, but as a preventive measure - if their threat potential is extremely high, far-leading and wide-spread. This does not include simple murder, but describes for example Mafia bosses, or leading minds behind drug and weapons smuggle, other extreme categories can be imagined.

So i want to see death "peantly" being removed from the set of standard penalties, and being understood as a tool of prevention against major damage for considerable parts of society, done by major figures of international crime and terrorism, whose impriosnment would not stop them to still control their business from inside the prison or who could become the motivation for kidnapping, murder, fighting in general by their criminal buddies in order to blackmail the state to release the prisoner in question.

This is a general description only, of course, and needs further specification. But you get my general idea.

What also speaks against death penalty, as discussed in this thread earlier or in one or two other threads on this issue, months ago, is simple statistics. A link between lower crime rates and death penalty has still not been proven, and statistics tell us of the unacceptably high error rates and many flaws and misjudgements concerning court sentences and proceedings resulting in death penalties. Everybody easily ignoring this must ask himself if he/she really seeks just penalty, or is more about bloodthirsty hunger for revenge and the thrilling kick of a sensation when watching people getting executed. when watching audiences outside US prisons applauding and celebrating when an execution order has been completed inside, I only think of such people as "Primitives." They have my utmost disgust and contempt, even more so if they wave christian slogans or ther Bible.

I'm not with the churches or any other religious groups, so religious texts of whatever an origin are not the kind of argument that will make me rethink my position.

Death as a penalty: nol, it is an illogical conception. Death as prevention against ongoing major crimes of excessively high scale and "quality": if the "whens" and "ifs" are adequately and precisely described, I can imagine it, and rate it as somethingmlike collective self-defense of society and state.

Two examples:

Would I execute the serial killer who raped and killed nine girls and mutilated and ate their bodies over the past 14 years? - No. It's life-long prison.

Would I execute the Mafia boss or the chief of a cartel who from inside prison would continue to conduct his business of drug smuggling, girl trading, selling military goods to unappropriate customers, or the religious fanatic leader whose followers are violant enough by his teachings that they would commit kidnappings and murders to blackmail his release? - Without hesitation, without regret.

[Radtgaeb]

Secularism also means not only to keep politics and religion two separate things, but to keep religion and legislation separate, too. Refering to the Bible is not better or worse than having the Sharia, which also rejects to keep politics, legislative and religion separate, and sees itself as motivation for and guardian of the right way of believing.

So the Bible hopefully is not seriously the basis of western law. and in fact, it isn't.

If the laws are better off with or without religious references is not the issue. Secularism is a decision of principle. You can't switch it on and off according to your opportunistic needs in a given situation. You either follow secularism, then you do it in totality, or you don'T follow it at all. Else, legislation turns into arbitrariness - not good.
I agree with you entirely. But listen...is killing someone a wrong thing to do? Religious or not, people generally agree that murderers suck. How is capital punishment different?
As I often have argued, "death penalty" is a contradiction in itself. In modern law, where it is not about revenge (at least it should not be about revenge), a penalty is a measurement by which the behavior and acting of an offender should be sanctioned, hoping that by suffering from that "aversive stimulus" he will not do it again. If you kill the offender, he cannot chnage his behavior, nor experience an aversive stimulus - for that it is a precondition that he survives the procedure. So rejecting someone freedom, or force him to suffer material losses or physical pain, are penalty. Executing him is not.

I am not naive, death and dying is a fact of live, and so is that sometimes man kills man. I could imagine to kill offenders under very strict and serious conditions, not as a penalty, but as a preventive measure - if their threat potential is extremely high, far-leading and wide-spread. This does not include simple murder, but describes for example Mafia bosses, or leading minds behind drug and weapons smuggle, other extreme categories can be imagined.

So i want to see death "peantly" being removed from the set of standard penalties, and being understood as a tool of prevention against major damage for considerable parts of society, done by major figures of international crime and terrorism, whose impriosnment would not stop them to still control their business from inside the prison or who could become the motivation for kidnapping, murder, fighting in general by their criminal buddies in order to blackmail the state to release the prisoner in question.

This is a general description only, of course, and needs further specification. But you get my general idea.

What also speaks against death penalty, as discussed in this thread earlier or in one or two other threads on this issue, months ago, is simple statistics. A link between lower crime rates and death penalty has still not been proven, and statistics tell us of the unacceptably high error rates and many flaws and misjudgements concerning court sentences and proceedings resulting in death penalties. Everybody easily ignoring this must ask himself if he/she really seeks just penalty, or is more about bloodthirsty hunger for revenge and the thrilling kick of a sensation when watching people getting executed. when watching audiences outside US prisons applauding and celebrating when an execution order has been completed inside, I only think of such people as "Primitives." They have my utmost disgust and contempt, even more so if they wave christian slogans or ther Bible.

I'm not with the churches or any other religious groups, so religious texts of whatever an origin are not the kind of argument that will make me rethink my position.

Death as a penalty: nol, it is an illogical conception. Death as prevention against ongoing major crimes of excessively high scale and "quality": if the "whens" and "ifs" are adequately and precisely described, I can imagine it, and rate it as somethingmlike collective self-defense of society and state.

Two examples:

Would I execute the serial killer who raped and killed nine girls and mutilated and ate their bodies over the past 14 years? - No. It's life-long prison.

Would I execute the Mafia boss or the chief of a cartel who from inside prison would continue to conduct his business of drug smuggling, girl trading, selling military goods to unappropriate customers, or the religious fanatic leader whose followers are violant enough by his teachings that they would commit kidnappings and murders to blackmail his release? - Without hesitation, without regret.

I see. But please don't think that all Christians in America are "primitives" as you say.
There are many of us who are educated people arguing in opposition to such barbaric acts as 'cheering when a death sentance is carried out' as you say.

[Skybird]

I see. But please don't think that all Christians in America are "primitives" as you say.
I haven't indicated that. I refered precisely to a specific audience, as described: those chanting and celebrating.

[U-533]

Well... it ain't really cheering when a criminal is executed... it's kinda like...

Its about freakin' time!!!!!

[The Avon Lady]

That is not a Christian religion then, but probably more of a Jewish one if you follow the Old testament over the new or equal to the new. This is a fullfilling, but it is also a replacement. It is true that many of the books were written after Jesus walked the Earth, but they are a compilation of what he has said, and instead of replacing, I would say it supercedes the old. That would probably be a better way of describing it.

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." — Jeremiah 31:31-34
This breaks the old. But there is plenty more to support the breaking of the old as well. I think about 30+ or more versus in total.

Also, the old covenent is called 'old and flawed' and replaced.
From the King James Version bible translation:

Daniel 9:4 And I prayed unto the LORD my G-d, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful G-d, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments; (KJV)

Nehemiah 1:5 And said, I beseech thee, O LORD G-d of heaven, the great and terrible G-d, that keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe his commandments: (KJV)

1 Chronicles 16:13 O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones. [14] He is the LORD our G-d; his judgments are in all the earth. [15] Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; [16] Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; [17] And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant. (KJV)

Isaiah 24:5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. (KJV)

More on Christianity's new covenant wishful thinking (http://www.messiahtruth.com/newcov.html).

[Hitman]

So i want to see death "peantly" being removed from the set of standard penalties, and being understood as a tool of prevention against major damage for considerable parts of society, done by major figures of international crime and terrorism, whose impriosnment would not stop them to still control their business from inside the prison or who could become the motivation for kidnapping, murder, fighting in general by their criminal buddies in order to blackmail the state to release the prisoner in question.


:huh:

Killing someone for something he has not done yet, but which you think he will do or not stop doing ... :hmm:

[The Avon Lady]

So i want to see death "peantly" being removed from the set of standard penalties, and being understood as a tool of prevention against major damage for considerable parts of society, done by major figures of international crime and terrorism, whose impriosnment would not stop them to still control their business from inside the prison or who could become the motivation for kidnapping, murder, fighting in general by their criminal buddies in order to blackmail the state to release the prisoner in question.


:huh:

Killing someone for something he has not done yet, but which you think he will do or not stop doing ... :hmm:
No. What you quoted refers to someone who has already been found guilty of a capital crime. Hence the quote refers to them as "inside the prison."

[Hitman]

If I understood correctly, he is in prison for what he has done yet, but Skybird suggest we kill him because he will not stop doing the same again, either directly when released or ordering it from inside the prison.

So we kill him because, based on what he did, we conclude that he will keep doing so. And thus we kill him for something not yet done.:hmm:

[The Avon Lady]

If I understood correctly, he is in prison for what he has done yet, but Skybird suggest we kill him because he will not stop doing the same again, either directly when released or ordering it from inside the prison.

So we kill him because, based on what he did, we conclude that he will keep doing so. And thus we kill him for something not yet done.:hmm:
I think there's a prerequisite "based on what he did", which on its own already qualifies the criminal for the death penalty.

The remaining benefits are icing on the cake. :D

[Hitman]

"Based on what he did" he got already a time in prison.

If we kill him for what he has not yet done, we are 1) Punishing him twice for the same crime, (For what he did he gets prison and now also death penalty) 2) Applying the worser punishment for the less important crime (One not yet commited versus a commited one), 3) Punishing something with the worser punishment possible based on probabilities and future projections, not in facts.

Anyway, I'm already sliding into the technical part of this (Proffesional deformation, probably), where these ideas were discarded more than a century ago, while Skybird and you are in a different categorical level.:hmm:

As I said already before, I have nothing against the death penalty, and I concur with you in the "icing of the cake" effect: Some bastards do not even deserve that money from the society is spent in having them alive in prison.

Yet my practical objection to death penalty remains: The posibility of error is too worse to be ignored. :dead:

[Skybird]

Hitman, don't try so hard to misunderstand me.

My text says very clearly what I mean: I talked of major figures of organised crime whom are influential enough that they would continue to contorl their criminal empire from inside the prison. I talked of major figures of terror, chiefs or organizations who smuggle weapons, military goods, drugs, women, etc. I also said that the usual stree-criminal or murder of passion is NOT meant by this.

So it is about major gangster or terrorists who are sent to jail for something they already did, and that they are likely to continue to do from there, by directing their criminal business from their cell, or becoming the motivation for other, free gangster to commit violance in order to blackmail the state to set them free.

I also said that death is n ot a penalty in the priecise meaning of the term, and that this way of doing (like I suggest) is not about penalty but about collective self-defense against ongoing communal damage being done by such people.

Really, don't try so hard to misunderstand me and quote me wrong.

I simple do not subscribe to this opinion that a human life, no matter whose, at all cost, always and inevitably is of higher value than to prevent certain kinds of ongoing major crimes, damages, disadvantages that bring misery and risk for dozens, thousands, millions of other people. I also refuse on these statements that all men are of equal value - that is simply idealistic hysteria. All men are NOT of equal value, and the survival of some is of greater moral worth or even factual importance than to protect the lives of others. The law in many countries gives an individual the right to self-defense (and in that: kill an attacker) for protecting even smaller interests: not the lives of thousands and millions, but that single life of himself "only".

Yet my practical objection to death penalty remains: The posibility of error is too worse to be ignored. :dead: On this part I totally agree, and said so. I linked to some revealing statistics some months ago. And additionally always on my mind: "death as a penalty" is a contradiction in itself. Penalty implies that the person receiving a penalty survives it in order to alter his behavior, because behavioral alteration is the hope of today's concept of penalty. If that always works, is something different (the chances are the smaller the more often or the more habit commiting crimes have become in a person's life - that is also about what psychologists would define as "learning"). "Death" cannot be a penalty, but only a "prevention" of future crimes, or an "interruption" of ongoing crimes. It is also the psychological understanding of the term, especially in behaviouristic school and psychological conceptions of "learning".

[Hitman]

Penalty implies that the person receiving a penalty survives it in order to alter his behavior, because behavioral alteration is the hope of today's concept of penalty

No, that's only half of the story. There is a very important difference between restitutive (civil) and retributive (criminal) concepts of justice.
Essentially, restitutive concepts mean returning to someone what belongs to him (F.e. someone owes money to another, then you forced him to pay) and imply that the perfect satisfaction -justice- can be achieved.

But justice in the retributive systems appears as a proportioned response to the offence using the same means (Inflicting a pain). Why? Because unlike a money debt (civil system) you can't reestablish the balance of justice simply by restoring the object of offence, as it many times isn't possible (F.e. psychological consequences for a victim of rape) or does fall into a different category (Money does not compensate properly a permanent hurt).

It is commonly admited nowadays that a criminal penalty has a double reason, yet that doesn't mean both fall into the category of punishment:

1) Retributive: As highlighted in the "social contract" concept by Locke, the state has the monopoly in any form of violence and punishment, taking away it from citizens. Yet it in turns guarantees revenge in the retributive component of the punishments it is enforced to apply, to satisfy the desire of revenge of any offended citizen. It is to be noted that in retributive systems, justice is finished, restablished or consumed by the application of the punishment.

2) Reeducative: Once the retribution of the crime has been accomplished, justice has been made (Remember we are in a criminal law concept) and the secondary function can be applied: The individual can be reeducated to get back to society. But it is important to note here that justice is done with the retribution, and not with the reeducation. Reeducation appears as an attempt to guarantee against future antisocial behaviours once the balance of justice has been restablished by retribution. The fact that reeducation and retribution are applied together in the same time line (In the prison) shall not obscure that they are ontologically different concepts which respond to very different purposes (Justice versus social security).

Essentially, death penalty simply implies that the retribution of the crime consumes already the life of the subject, and as such reeducation is impossible. Yet as you must observe, it doesn't exclude the concept of justice through punishment in itself, only the secondary role of the punishment, which is not conceptually a part of the justice conception behind it, but more a social prevention task.

This all is to illustrate why I don't concur to your idea of death punishment being a contradiction because it excludes reeducation. Reeducation is not conceptually a part of the criminal justice conception.

and that this way of doing (like I suggest) is not about penalty but about collective self-defense against ongoing communal damage being done by such people.

Really, don't try so hard to misunderstand me and quote me wrong.


That's a very different matter, but it wasn't so clear to me in your previous post. When you refered to "tool of prevention" I understood you were still in the legal level and were talking about the secondary role of the pubishment I mentioned previously. Now I realize you were talking about a different perspective, far away from the strictly legal of criminal punishment for a crime and entering the politic/philosophical of security preventions in general terms. Being so, I don't have anything to say against that, as I was not willing to discuse such measures (Like selective assasination of terrorists and such).

[The Avon Lady]

but it wasn't so clear to me in your previous post
GERMAN>ENLISH>SPANISH>ENGLISH>GERMAN>ENGLISH>SPANISH :88)

[Skybird]

Hitman,

as I see it you reinvent the concept of "blood revenge", eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, and so on. the archaic/old coneption of justice was a cosmic one: one tribe member for example slaugters the member of another tribe. Cosmos is off balcne by that, the baöance needs to be established again: So the second clans demands the life of one member of the first clan in return. both clans have suffered the same ammount of loss (this concept for the most is about quantity, not quality), the balance has been restored.

Today's modern concept of justice is to repair damage that has been done (if this is possible, we talk about compensation), or to"resocialize" offenders and until then try to alter their behavior by expose them to aversive simuli, like preventing them freedom ba locking them away. Modern laws were explicitly meant to overcome the old concept of revenge. The state has no monopole to issue revenge, he has a monopole on using force, so that he can force an offender to submit to this process. It is not about revenge, eniether for the state, nor for the ones who received harm. I do not know how it is in Spain, but I can't imagine that it is so much different in your country, since your country underwentz the same cultural evolution like most of Europe. In Germany, the rejection of taking revenge, often, time and again, is explicitly reiterated by lawyers, after a lawcase that found public interst and was covered by media cam to an end.

One can argue if the conception of resocialising, and altering behavior by locking people away, or send them to therapy in prison, is reasojmbale or not, im my understanding it sometimes work, sometimes not, and all in all does not work as well as it's defenders often argue. these measurements too often ignore the harsh social realities people are confronted with, so they are tools for an ideal, utopic world, what doesnot mean that sometimes people do not leave prison as "better" men indeed. But the habit of committing crimes, for example because you are member of the lower social class, grew up on the street in street gangs, etc etc, is a psychological self-dynamic of intense, great power, and illustrates a learning history that is antagonistic to the learning history you hope to establish by sending an offender to prison (aversive stimulus after display of unwanted behavior). The qurstion is, which of these two leaqrning historieshas the greater dynamic. Having been sent to prison repeatedly can become so aversive that a man finally decides to try his best to avoid return at all cost, especially when he has become older. It could also mean that he got used to it, so the rehabilitation effect is even smaller. It also explains why the perspective is worse for those with already a longer criminal history, maybe even since their childhood, or when they live ion a social environment where they cannot survive without acting criminal. In the end, we are not talking about abstract concepts like justice, revenge, compensation, penalty, but psychologic dynamics and energies that don't care so much for this phi9losophical stuff, because they function according to how nature wnated them to function in order to secure the survival of the individual, and the species. I am not the first mind saying that human civilisation is etenrally colliding with man'S nature. and man's nature is the produzct of our evolution. I am not in that camp saying that man's nature is "evil", or violant. It is natural in that it reflected the design process of evolution. and although civilization and nature are antagonists, civilization nevertheless is the only hope we have to learn to control our instincts (or even be motivated to wish to larn that), and prevent our nature to brake out without remorse. that is contradictory, and it is a miracle, seen in that light, that nevertheless all in all it showed not always, but quite a bit of positive results. Nevertheless it all is a crutch only. Best solution, of course, is to raise our kids in an environement where they must not learn the law of the streets, but the law of ethic values, and where there is a accident, a crime, an issue, two sides would come together and settle it by use of reason, and in the spirit of what is best for the community. that certainly is an utopia too, I know that. But it is more attractive for me than the uotpia of ultra-conservative law-and-order, revenge, or overcrowded prisons who release their prisons into more and more crowded social environments.

A more realistic solution i cannot offer. Can anyone? Right now we try to practice what we consider to be the least worse of the bad options, although many live by the deception that it works quite well and is already well in itself).

An unsolvable dilemma, imo. But who said that reality owes to us to always offer a solution?

[Radtgaeb]

Getting back to something we can all agree on....

U BOATS ROCK! :rock::rock::rock::rock::rock::rock:

[Yahoshua]

Well, take it straight from the 10 commandments. "Thou shalt not kill." That pretty much sums it up. No matter if they committed a heinous crime or not, it's vengeful punishment and IS murder. .

It's incorrectly translated into english as that, it's properly phrased "You shall not murder." Different connotation. And in further opposition to your stance, there are several explicit commands to destroy people who commit murder in the 1st degree (intentional murder), serial rape, those involved in the kidnapping and sale of a kidnap victim.


Exodus 21:12-14


Verse 12: If one strikes a man and he [the victim] dies, he shall be put to death (http://www.tachash.org/texis/vtx/chumash/+awwBmeUr4rWKwwwxFqwqFqt0Ldm15mFqwnFqtM1GmnGhzmxww w/article.html#hit2).
Verse 13: But if he did not lie in wait [to ambush him] but G-d brought it to his hand, then I will designate for you a place, to which he can flee [and find refuge]. Verse 14: But if a man plots against his neighbor to kill (http://www.tachash.org/texis/vtx/chumash/+awwBmeUr4rWKwwwxFqwqFqt0Ldm15mFqwnFqtM1GmnGhzmxww w/article.html#hit3) him intentionally, you may [even] take him from My altar to put him to death.

Exodus 21:16

Verse 16: Whoever steals [kidnaps] a man and sells him, if he is found in his hand, he shall be put to death (http://www.tachash.org/texis/vtx/chumash/+awwBmeUr4rWKwwwxFqwqFqt0Ldm15mFqwnFqtM1GmnGhzmxww w/article.html#hit5).



John 8:7 = The adulteress was about to be stoned, Jesus said to them "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.". Who are we to take a life when we've all done something wrong in our lives? I'm not saying give the creep a chance...but life behind bars NO parole would be a fine deterrant.

Personally, yes, I did take some satisfaction when I watched the news of Tim McVeigh's execution. I really did think he deserved to die. But just because I FELT that way, doesn't mean that it was the right action. The heart, weather you're religioius or not, is decietful. .

For the first part, it's out of context. None of the accusers were actually witness to the event they were accusing the woman of, nor had they brought the man who was involved in the accusation. So if they went ahead and stoned her, they would ALL be liable to the death penalty, so they abandoned their idea and left.

For the second part, a man like Tim McVeigh is a monster. He intentionally murdered as many people as he could in his schemes. Permanently removing him from society was the RIGHT thing to do.



And please don't go playing the "but my transgressions aren't murder!" because that's been obliterated, if you put any credibility into The Bible as I do. All sins are equal in magnitude.

What's been obliterated?

[Yahoshua]

as I see it you reinvent the concept of "blood revenge", eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, and so on. the archaic/old coneption of justice was a cosmic one: one tribe member for example slaugters the member of another tribe. Cosmos is off balcne by that, the baöance needs to be established again: So the second clans demands the life of one member of the first clan in return. both clans have suffered the same ammount of loss (this concept for the most is about quantity, not quality), the balance has been restored.

(my quick 2 cents on this part, I know it's not meant for me so I'll be brief).

The whole concept of "blood revenge" (eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, etc.) is actually a common misperception as it didn't literally mean taking out the eye of man who destroyed your eye, but it meant monetary compensation for the loss of that eye or tooth.

(k, that was my 2 cents).

[Hitman]

Today's modern concept of justice is to repair damage that has been done (if this is possible, we talk about compensation), or to"resocialize" offenders and until then try to alter their behavior by expose them to aversive simuli, like preventing them freedom ba locking them away. Modern laws were explicitly meant to overcome the old concept of revenge.

Oh, you obviously lack the legal formation needed to discuss this from a more technical perspective....I already pointed out the necessary division that is done in the concepts of justice in civil versus criminal laws. Yet you talk about a single concept of justice as if it were only one, which is possible in philosophical theory but impossible in practical applications of the law and legal systems.

The root of the criminal systems is in the assumption by the state of the revenge formerly in hands of particulars, not just as a monopoly of force, but also as a monopoly of revenge in the sense of retribution of an offence. There is a subtle but very important distinction there: There are legitimate forms of use of force and violence as response to an ilegal criminal action (Self defence), which are particularly problematic in certain crimes (Offences against honor). Interestingly, it was the honor crimes what entered last into that monopoly of revenge (Duels were allowed even if killing someone in general was punished), and that shows clearly that it is not just a monopoly of force but also of revenge as retribution for an offence. Conceptually speaking, revenge was absorbed separatedly of how force monopoly was absorbed. There could be revenge without use of force and that is also unaccepted; revenge as retribution for a socially unacceptable action is now institutionalized.

In the first year of criminal laws studies you learn the whole theory of the crime definition and of the punishments definitions and nature, plus the objectives they serve in modern and ancient societies. The german doctrine is the one who has made stronger and better contributions to that (Mayer, Mezger, Binding), and it is widely accepted that the punishment has following functions in the criminal system:

1) General Prevention: In that everyone sees the threat the state makes to anyone who commits a crime that he will be punished

2) Individual Prevention: In that he who is found guilty will suffer a retribution for his crime. That in turn has two objectives:

2a) Plain retribution of the crime, as

A) Socialiced form of revenge, compatible with the human rights. This is how cultural and religious tradition is socialized and introduced in the law. The law does not exist or is born unconnected to cultural traditions, it simply regulates them and when applyable, adequates them to a superior frame (Constitution, Human rights)

B) Disuasive effect to prevent that the individual commits more crimes

2b) Paralell reedecuation of the individual to supress the psychological and logical thinking process elements that took him to commit the crime.

It is not about revenge, eniether for the state, nor for the ones who received harm.

Yes it is. You fail to understand that retribution for an offence is what popularly is known as revenge. Only it loses its primitive uncontrolled form and gets regulated and socialized. Society makes revenge in an acceptable form through the punishment, in the sense of retributing an action to restablish a balance in theoretical terms (Which is what we call justice). The fact that a criminal gets a punishment is something that calms the society "beruhigt" says the german doctrine.

You know very well the reeductaion part of the punishment system, -much better than me- but that part is in fact accesory to the sociopolitic means of the criminal systems. Your perspective ignores the sociocultural formation of criminal systems and what exactly was taken away from society and put into them, and why. If you consider the punishment of crimes just as a mean of general prevention (Through the threat of punishment) and reeducation of offenders, you are no less than forgetting the religious and cultural background of the society in which that system has to be applied.

In Germany, the rejection of taking revenge, often, time and again, is explicitly reiterated by lawyers, after a lawcase that found public interst and was covered by media cam to an end.

The rejection of taking INDIVIDUAL and popular revenge, yes. But as long as you are retributing a crime you are doing institutionalited revenge. Do you think the society would accept a criminal system were only reeducation is done? Obviously not. A sense of retribution is inside the criminal system because it is applied after all in a society with a culture, tradition and religions.

You are creating an artificial distinction between retribution and revenge, while they are in fact conceptually variants of the same principle (civilized and uncivilized).

In germany the monopoly of the criminal action is in the hands of the prosecutor (Staatsanwalt), while here in Spain it is not like that, and any citizen can exercise criminal action wether offended by the crime or not, to ask the court to punish the offender. That's the main difference, but aside from that the principles behind criminal legal systems are similar.

Never mind, we agree anyway in that practically the death penalty has too many problems, so excuse if I stop discussing this, because I feel we are hijacking the thread.:hmm:

[Skybird]

I understood the difference you insist on very well, it's just that by the examples set in germany, I can't see you to make a valid difference, you do not convince me. You said:

"Do you think the society would accept a criminal system were only reeducation is done? Obviously not. "

I only answer: you don't know Germany well, then. Do you think you could find wide public and political acceptance for a law system that is not focussed on this heroic ideal of reeducation, and resocialisation and rehabilitation? If you think so, than you are in for a hard awakening.

My mum's sister was killed in a car crash in the 70s, she and her new-married husband and unborn baby got wiped out by a drunk ghost-driver on the Autobahn. He got away with a financial penalty and a prison penalty on suspension, because in modern laws people are not responsible for the ammount of alcohol they choose to drink, it even is considered to be an extenuating variable, which imo is the culmination of absurdity) . Some years later he caused another car accident, again by alcohol. I do not know the details, since I was just a boy back then. The court - eager for doing revenge...?

My fiance got killed in the same way in the 90s : killed by a drunk car driver driving with excessive speed. The penalty, according to the court, reflected the judge's intention to give the driver the possebility to think about it and learn from his mistake for his future life: financial penalty, and prison on suspenison. A second round in a higher instance followed, with the same result. Since the he has lost his driving license three more times, and was given it back, and caused another accident by not keeping minimum safety distance while driving with racing speed. The court - eager for doing revenge...?

Roughly two years ago I was totally surprised and stabbed on open street by a maniac, just out of the moment, without reason. already having a wide and bleeding wound on my right waiste I totally knocked him out of action with quite some adequate brutality, a thing of seconds, ending with him unconsciousness, and having several injuries. Later i learned he already had a criminal (drug- and street-related) career. Without that history, he would have been given a penalty on suspension. now the best of it: he even found a lawyer who tried to sue me - for use of excessive force, while him trying to put his knife into my body and ending my life apparently seemed to be okay. Not before the court refused to accept that absurd case, the accusation was pulled back. I was told that I was lucky - there are known judges, or better state attorneys who would have accepted the case. the court - eager to practice "revenge"?

Several public criminal cases on my mind, on sexual abuse, pedophilia, nazi and racist violence, etc. I don't know one case from recent years where the penalty reflected the court's assumed attempt to please a public interest for "revenge". It always was about preventing further damage to the society (or not), and always focussed on the therapy, the socialisation, the learning, the teaching of the offender. Even repetitious sexual offenders time and again get released - and many of them become offenders again. soicial rehabilitation is the top goal here - not revenge. You will find it difficult to find suppoort either from the public or from the attorney, judges and layers in Germany for your claims on the state executing a monopole to practice "revenge." Nobody would admit he wants revenge. That is not educated, that is not civilized, that is politicvally uncorrect, pfui-bah! Revenge? One doesn't do something so primitive...

Obviously, Spanish and German courts are lightyears apart, if you are right with what you say. I cannot imagine it.

Note that i do not argue pro or contra a hunger for revenge in public opinion. that is not the point of interest. If the court proceedings and laws reflect this assumed existent hunger for revenge or not - that is the point. and in Germany, it is considerted to be most uncorrect to even implay that this maybe, evemntually could eb the case. and I cannot see it to be like you say. In fact, our legal system is overboarding with pedagogic intentions, and softeness, and endless wellmeaning understanding. Revenge - here...? :lol: