Life or Death

This doesn't change the fact the executioner is the decider - not the criminal. What if the criminal changed his mind after? What if he truly was repentant? Then killing him would serve no purpose. Killing him at that point would be murder.

 

Then you obviously don't consider that there is any spiritual component in humans? For if this were not the case, when does this spiritual come into being?

Death on deathrow enacted is the very, very last resort.

 

The condemned prisoner did not even consider their fate when they commit a crime. The courts decide after the fact.

 

So if you're against something, why would you support the State making the decision? Don't you think your leanings would be enough to do everything you can to counter any state mandate to do otherwise?

 

If the criminal is convicted, it's no longer allegedly.

 

When and where was that said?

 

Oh no, there maybe some spiritual element in humans, certainly its possible.

Not even the most religious can answer that question, and it wouldn't change my point either way. Spiritual essence, by all accounts, is not dependent on physical stability.

The whole point I ma making here is that when a situation requires killing it would have to be so severe a case that questioning the use of such violence would be hard to do. That's how much of a last resort I am describing. In the case of convicted murderers that can be peacefully and orderly kept in jail, there is absolutely no reason to execute them.

 

The criminal loses the right to change their mind about the sentence no matter whether they are repentant or not. There are consequences to our actions, otherwise people can do whatever harm they want to another, then change their mind and say. Sorry, I messed up, please forgive me, I won't do it again. You want them on the streets again?

It's only murder when an innocent loses their life, not a convicted criminal. Except in the case of war, innocents will lose their life, it's the nature of war.

 

By those who say capital punishment is ok.

 

Not "the state", but the states. Constitutionally, I believe it is an issue best left up to the states.

 

Why?

You are saying capital punishment is an effective deterrent, ie a better one than jail? There is no evidence for this assertion.

Why would it be different? In the first instance one could justify it by saying "its the nature of crime".

 

Right, because an innocent person has never been convicted of a crime. Our justice system is infallible, after all.

 

murder is unlawful homicide. what if i shot someone that was pointing a gun at me, but the guy wasn't going to pull the trigger? you can't form a legal code on "what ifs".

 

it's flawed, but to date, it's the best there is. there's a better chance of winning the lottery than being convicted of a crime you didn't commit...unless you ask prisoners. every one of them (with few exceptions) will claim it wasn't them or the victim asked for it.

 

Actually you can. In fact the ENTIRE legal code is based on one huge "what if", that being - "what if he's innocent". But aside form the what if I describe, you have yet to give a valid reason why he should die. What is the justification for retribution?

 

Which did you get that dodgy statistic from?

 

Which is why I used the term "alleged".

Doesn't mean it's as good as it could be.

There is absolutely no way you could know such a thing.

 

I can see why you think that when man condemns someone to death you think they are standing in for God, but they are not. They are acting within the rights of government to take the life of those who commit heinious crimes.

The Word gives authority to this.

 

I will agree that the Constitution gives limited powers to the Federal Government, thereby restricting the role of the Fed. I will agree the Constitution allows the States to deal with all other issues. But I still do not understand your going along with State mandates that oppose your personal beliefs. You have a right to protest and help overturn those laws. Why don't you do it?

 

Of course the justice system is infallible, but if we did not have a justice system (perfect or not) we would be living in hell. The convicted when given the proper avenues of appeal get their day(s) in court. God has and will deal with any injustice on the part of man.

 

There is no nature when it comes to acts of heinious crimes. The criminal in these cases are guilty of premeditated murder and worse. Victims of war are not necessarily killed as a result of premeditated murder. Quite a difference unless a government intentionally kills it's own people or others.

 

This is the problem, you see the death penalty as retribution. We see it as justice served.

 

Abortion is a complicated issue for me. I find it morally reprehensible but I've had difficulty reconciling my principle with pragmatic governance so I just defer to the law.

 

Fallible.

I don't recall saying we shouldn't have a justice system.

You completely miss the point. Just because someone is convicted of a crime does not mean they actually committed the crime, which is why I inserted the qualifier "allegedly". Given the fallibility of our justice system, it is perfectly accurate to use such a qualifier.

 

That's fine. I just believe in expressing my strong opinion against what I find morally reprehensible. Anyone with an ounce of caring for the innocent can not do less.

It was said of the death penalty "Man is acting as God to take someone's life". Why is this not true of those that terminate a human-in-the-making?