bish Posted October 2, 2008 Posted October 2, 2008 Who's protecting them? People like you who prefer they be supported for the rest of their life with free room/board, and entertainment. maybe someday someone will murder a loved one of yours and you can feel good about it knowing they were sentenced to a resort.
Moose Posted October 2, 2008 Posted October 2, 2008 I am coming into this very late, but I had a comment. Doesn't the bible say that one day there will be an apocolyse and all sinners will go to hell. Isn't that like say God will condem those who sin to Capital Punishment? I am not trying to start an argument on this, just curious.Well...not quite. We are all sinners. So your scenario would condem each and every one of us..... When God does come back, everyone will know for sure God isn't/wasn't a, "fairy tale".... and once more, He'll let those who haven't placed their faith in Him make up their minds one last time.....
Geishawhelk Posted October 2, 2008 Posted October 2, 2008 People like you who prefer they be supported for the rest of their life with free room/board, and entertainment. maybe someday someone will murder a loved one of yours and you can feel good about it knowing they were sentenced to a resort. Thank you. My cousin was murdered two years ago. I know the killer, I know they're in prison, and I have spoken to them.
jerbear Posted October 2, 2008 Posted October 2, 2008 We are all sinners. So your scenario would condem each and every one of us..... Ain't that the truth! With all the calamities going around, who knows.
bish Posted October 2, 2008 Posted October 2, 2008 Thank you. My cousin was murdered two years ago. I know the killer, I know they're in prison, and I have spoken to them. I'm sorry, and my condolences. But I don't believe for one minute that you deep down think that the murderer got fitting punishment and thinks that he deserves to be among the living.
Geishawhelk Posted October 2, 2008 Posted October 2, 2008 I don't think the law metes out a punishment to fit the crime. but if he was up for the death penalty, I would be the first up to oppose it. Together, I might add, with my aunt and cousins. They are opposed to the Death penalty also, and wouldn't wish it on him.
barefoot880 Posted October 2, 2008 Posted October 2, 2008 There are far worse things to experience than death. If I was a murderer I'd rather receive the death penalty than life in prison. Why? because if you execute me then all you are doing is putting me out of my misery. I won't have to go through hell and pain in prison. Prison is a tough place to live. If you are one who is looking for revenge then I think keeping a person alive to torture them would be more effective than putting them to death. Once I'm dead I have no feelings anymore. If a suicidal person plans to take out a bunch of people in the process but fails do you really think he cares if you give him the death penalty?
barefoot880 Posted October 2, 2008 Posted October 2, 2008 Will do. As a Buddhist I cannot condone Murder and refuse to accept that killing someone - anyone - is justified. They deserve to be punished. they deserve to have the full weight of the Law brought down upon them. But I have no right to demand their life in return for one they have taken. And neither will I ever do so. The Law is flawed. I believe Life should be Life, with no remand or parole. Prisoners should forfeit an awful lot of rights. Prison is no longer punishment, as much as it should be. They have TV, three meals a day and all manner of privileges which I do not believe they should be party to. I believe life should be hard, and imprisonment should be a punishment. The system should be overhauled, and many things should be reviewed. Killing is one of them. If prisoners get this kind of luxurious lifestyle in prsion then who would not want to go to prison? That will just encourage more crime because the prison world seems to offer more than the free world sometimes.
Taramere Posted October 3, 2008 Posted October 3, 2008 Every time you win in life, another person must lose. Didn't one of America's favourite wealthy sons say it? Winning is not enough. All others must lose. It would be puerile to suppose it's possible for a society of winners and losers to prevail without any corresponding negative consequences for people in general. The wealthiest and most successful people accept that without problem. They recruit body-guards, protect their property and family with lasers and locked gates....generally keep themselves safe from the angry losers. It's the wannabees who pay. The people who idolise the wealthy like panting little doggies and who emulate as much of their lifestyles in the vain hope that they might get mistaken for being one of them. Who can't, however, afford the protective aspects of that lifestyle. Who play their part in encouraging the losers/winners mentality...but just aren't rich enough to avoid the various consequences that the laws of nature will start imposing when that hard and brutal "winners and losers" mentality prevails for too long. People love to froth at the mouth and rant about the merits of putting various broken bits and pieces of humanity into the electric chair. Introduce those same people to some shady mafia type who has millions tucked away, however, and I bet half of them will be salivating over what a great guy he is. Hoping to catch a round of golf with him some day, and not thinking too hard about how he made his millions. I can't really support the notion of the death penalty. Not in a society where justice, like everything else, can be bought.
Author Eve Posted October 3, 2008 Author Posted October 3, 2008 A very thoughtful post Taramere.. My concern is that the majority of prisoners do eventually leave prison. Although seperated from those who have been given a death penalty they are mixing with others whose crimes are only a notch or two below their crimes. Hence, we MUST consider ways of rehabilitating prisoners... I do not understand the mind set which is all about punishing people when really the majority of these people are going to end up living back in society at some other point in the future. I wonder how many who are on death row previously served time in other prisons? I think that the sentences given out in America (which I have heard about) seem far far more harsh than in Britian and I agree with longer sentencing for rape etc. However I still think that we must go further to make prisons places where we try and break mindsets which are dysfuntional such as gang membership etc. I think that prison remains uneffective for many because these underlying dysfunctions are not addressed and remain unchallenged. If I were in charge, all of that would stop, even if it meant that whilst in prison a person has no contact with other prisoners at all duing the duration of their stay. This seems to be the only part which works with death row prisoners in that I have seen (only on TV) many professions of change by people who are on death row - although obviously there will be a percentage of persons who are manipulative. So, I dont think that we can kill people because of their crimes but they should be detained in ways which break cycles of addiction and violence within an environment which interacts in a realistic way to different pathologies because most prisoners do come back into society. By removing prisoners from contact with each other maybe certain behaviours could be confronted? BUT, I do think that prisoners could end up receiving more abuse from prison guards if evryone was seperated from each other and the costs to maintain such a system would be out of this world.. I wish we had the perspective of someone who works in the prison system...
GPFan Posted October 3, 2008 Posted October 3, 2008 I have a question I have always wanted to ask but have held back lest I unduly offend. This discussion presents a good opportunity and I think I will take it this time. How do fundamentalist religionists reconcile their vociferous promotion of anti-abortion with their equally vociferous promotion of capital punishment? Aren't the two logically mutually exclusive? In trying to figure this out, I have thought the idea was each person must have a chance to sin beyond a certain threshold? Why is that threshold murder? There are several examples of righteous murder and genocide in the Old Testament! So whilst protecting a person within the womb, that same person grown up could be sentenced to death because of a sin more grievous than other sins? Yet doesn't the Bible promote the idea that we are all born in sin? The only ones who are sinless are those who aren't born yet, correct? Or are they sinful too due to being proto-human? My question is: What is the primary difference between the unborn and born when it comes to deciding whether to end a life?
Trialbyfire Posted October 3, 2008 Posted October 3, 2008 Rehab is always a concept that's a bright and shining star, put before everyone with "Yes, you can change if we try hard enough!". Seen too many people change on LS lately? Just sayin'.
jerbear Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 Seen too many people change on LS lately? Just sayin'. We see Second Chances, then Coping, then Break-ups, then talk about Capital Punishment...
Trialbyfire Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 We see Second Chances, then Coping, then Break-ups, then talk about Capital Punishment... Circular, no? Then we see many who are stuck in one forum, sometimes for years. Not to minimalize people's problems on LS but compared to trying to force change down the throats of felons through rehab, when violence has been the foundation of their existence, our issues on LS don't compare. On average, we're looking at 3 - 6 months for people to recover from a simple break up. How long does the prison system take to restructure an entire person, especially when they're being forcibly dragged along, kicking and screaming all the way or some, pretending to play along? Add in the component of attempting to forcibly make change within a completely dysfunctional environment like a prison.
johan Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 I'm opposed to the death penalty. Like most things on this site, arguing about it is mostly a worthless activity.
disgracian Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 I look forward to a reply to GPFan's excellent post. I surmise that the disparity (when it occurs in the more extreme cases) is rooted in a need to feel superior to others rather than any genuine compassion. Cheers, D.
Nemo Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 I'm in favour of changing the name from the death penalty to the humane termination. Because it's all about giving the victim's family justice. And because sometimes a life just ain't worth living. Besides, many people who kill, kill again. It's documented. So think of all the innocent lives we would save. Many more than the innocent people we would put to death (like a life in prison is an alternative that makes us feel any better about a mistake??!!). Convicted rapists will have their genitalia removed, and frozen. That way, if we make a mistake, we can sew it back on. Once again, it's all about the repeat offenders.
Explorer Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 I have a question I have always wanted to ask but have held back lest I unduly offend. This discussion presents a good opportunity and I think I will take it this time. How do fundamentalist religionists reconcile their vociferous promotion of anti-abortion with their equally vociferous promotion of capital punishment? Aren't the two logically mutually exclusive? In trying to figure this out, I have thought the idea was each person must have a chance to sin beyond a certain threshold? Why is that threshold murder? There are several examples of righteous murder and genocide in the Old Testament! So whilst protecting a person within the womb, that same person grown up could be sentenced to death because of a sin more grievous than other sins? Yet doesn't the Bible promote the idea that we are all born in sin? The only ones who are sinless are those who aren't born yet, correct? Or are they sinful too due to being proto-human? My question is: What is the primary difference between the unborn and born when it comes to deciding whether to end a life? Abortion boils down to the question: 'Is it murder?' Science cannot answer that, however some religions can.
disgracian Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 Because it's all about giving the victim's family justice. I question your use of the word justice. Revenge sounds more apt. And because sometimes a life just ain't worth living. I'm sure that sounds like a grand idea until somebody else decides that about you. Cheers, D.
Nemo Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 Abortion boils down to the question: 'Is it murder?' Science cannot answer that, however some religions can. Science tells us that an egg is not life, and a million sperm is not life. But the union of an egg and a sperm is life. From that point on, a termination is the termination of life. Whatever you call it, science gives us the facts.
Nemo Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 Capital punishment is bad? Mkay? Mkay? Is that in the same mould as anyhoo? Does being cool (or very hood?) make you an authority on all subjects? We should just send all the criminals to Australia. Problem solved.
johan Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 Mkay? Is that in the same mould as anyhoo? Does being cool (or very hood?) make you an authority on all subjects? Why all the questions? Mkay?
Nemo Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 Why all the questions? Mkay? Please forgive me. I skipped my meds.
johan Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 Please forgive me. I skipped my meds. You're this close to being put to death? Mkay?
Recommended Posts