Death sentences....

[RichP]

While I am not a advocate of blanket capital punishment calling lethal injection cruel and unusual punishment is just plain BS....Personally I think that the if you blew someones face off with a shotgun you should go the same way.... If you raped them then killed them you should go the same way [hell, use a modified kitchen aid sex machine] then blow their head off...

 

[jeepinxj01]

While I am not a advocate of blanket capital punishment calling lethal injection cruel and unusual punishment is just plain BS....Personally I think that the if you blew someones face off with a shotgun you should go the same way.... If you raped them then killed them you should go the same way [hell, use a modified kitchen aid sex machine] then blow their head off...

Not sure where this is going, but I'll bite. Eye for an eye, sounds great on paper and I will be the first one in line to support it; would never happen unfortunately. The death penalty IMHO should be used more and should NOT take 20 years to be enforced.

 

[Geepfreak]

Personally I think that the if you blew someones face off with a shotgun you should go the same way.... If you raped them then killed them you should go the same way [hell, use a modified kitchen aid sex machine] then blow their head off...

Total agreement, But that is just my upbringing talking.

 

[bjoehandley]

X2, especially on length of enforcement time.

 

[jeepinxj01]

X2, especially on length of enforcement time.

If a criminal convicted of a crime recieves the death penalty, they should be put to death within a week. Maybe the criminals would think twice about it. I don't know though......

 

[afd516]

Yeah, once they are sentenced to death, what is the point of keeping them alive for so long. Kill them and make room for others that have committed lesser crimes. Save my money!

 

[bjoehandley]

The only problem is that atleast in the county I live in they have the habit of convicting people who weren't even near the crimescene when it happened.

 

[RichP]

The only problem is that atleast in the county I live in they have the habit of convicting people who weren't even near the crimescene when it happened.

Yes, that is one problem that bothers me, the number of convictions that there are of really innocent people. But the ones where there is no doubt should be done quickly...

 

[Ramsey]

Eye for an eye. I imagine violent crimes would drop quickly.

 

[jeepinxj01]

Yes, that is one problem that bothers me, the number of convictions that there are of really innocent people.

Brings up another good point. If someone is wrongfully imprisoned for whatever reason, and the "mistake" is caught how do you repay that person for the government's mistake?

 

[Starscream]

Eye for an eye. I imagine violent crimes would drop quickly.

Although I agree somewhat (not he be demolished in return - that's pretty cruel and unusual - but he should die), did anyone bother to read further than that section? "Turn the other cheek"?

 

[0313]

I think they should make the Death Penalty a PPV event and give the money to the families of the victims.

The reason it takes so long for them to get put to death is because of the system. They just keep doing appeals to the next higher court, usually when it gets to district court it gets shot back down to the bottom. Then they say they find something new about the case, and same process. It can take years to get to district court on the upward travel. Crappy system I think. But you have to have the checks and balances.


The outright guilty without a doubt people should be put to death quicker, who cares if they were mentally ill or whatnot.

 

[red91]

Although I agree somewhat (not he be demolished in return - that's pretty cruel and unusual - but he should die), did anyone bother to read further than that section? "Turn the other cheek"?

ok. Lets go down your road for a bit...if that was the case read further...in the Garden of Gethsamane (SP?) Peter struck the Roman soldier with a sword, thustly cutting off his ear.

It stands to reason to do that, without mortally injuring the soldier, Peter was very adept at using the sword.

If Jesus wanted him to turn the other cheek, why would he have allowed him to carry a sword in the first place? And, IIRC Peter was not the only ARMED one of the disciples.

The early Jews had the death penalty, and it still applied in the time of Jesus, according to the historical writing of Joesephus.

Turning the other cheek was when an other did something wrong that might have not been necessarily a public crime, but maybe a moral crime.

Jesus aslo stated that he could have had LEGIONS of angels at his side to fight with him, but it was NOT THAT TIME.

Why would he fight? If he had JUST CAUSE.

 

[rock rash]

eye for an eye, is a ruthless revengeful idea that is morally wrong...in mo own opinion. I know that many people on this board will not have the same opinion as me. I do not believe in the death penalty. I do not think Lethal Injection is cruel and unusual. Since there will be no abolishing capital punishment, i think that, if needed, lethal injection should be the only type of capital punishment...Florida still used hangings until the mid 1990s i believe...it was rare, but was used. I think the electric chair is horrible. If it has to be used...it should be by lethal injection

 

[0313]

ok. Lets go down your road for a bit...if that was the case read further...in the Garden of Gethsamane (SP?) Peter struck the Roman soldier with a sword, thustly cutting off his ear.

It stands to reason to do that, without mortally injuring the soldier, Peter was very adept at using the sword.

If Jesus wanted him to turn the other cheek, why would he have allowed him to carry a sword in the first place? And, IIRC Peter was not the only ARMED one of the disciples.

The early Jews had the death penalty, and it still applied in the time of Jesus, according to the historical writing of Joesephus.

Turning the other cheek was when an other did something wrong that might have not been necessarily a public crime, but maybe a moral crime.

Jesus aslo stated that he could have had LEGIONS of angels at his side to fight with him, but it was NOT THAT TIME.

Why would he fight? If he had JUST CAUSE.

Arent you Jewish? Thought you didnt believe in Jesus.....

 

[red91]

eye for an eye, is a ruthless revengeful idea that is morally wrong...in mo own opinion. I know that many people on this board will not have the same opinion as me. I do not believe in the death penalty. I do not think Lethal Injection is cruel and unusual. Since there will be no abolishing capital punishment, i think that, if needed, lethal injection should be the only type of capital punishment...Florida still used hangings until the mid 1990s i believe...it was rare, but was used. I think the electric chair is horrible. If it has to be used...it should be by lethal injection

no death penalty? Ok. I can respect that....how about the right to life?

agree or disagree...

 

[Starscream]

ok. Lets go down your road for a bit...if that was the case read further...in the Garden of Gethsamane (SP?) Peter struck the Roman soldier with a sword, thustly cutting off his ear.

It stands to reason to do that, without mortally injuring the soldier, Peter was very adept at using the sword.

If Jesus wanted him to turn the other cheek, why would he have allowed him to carry a sword in the first place? And, IIRC Peter was not the only ARMED one of the disciples.

The early Jews had the death penalty, and it still applied in the time of Jesus, according to the historical writing of Joesephus.

Turning the other cheek was when an other did something wrong that might have not been necessarily a public crime, but maybe a moral crime.

Jesus aslo stated that he could have had LEGIONS of angels at his side to fight with him, but it was NOT THAT TIME.

Why would he fight? If he had JUST CAUSE.

I agree. I was merely bringing about the point. Too many people just use the "eye for an eye" thing. I'm no bible scholar and I'm hardly religious, but I believe Jesus also said he was there to fulfill the law, but that nothing would be changed.

 

[rckclmbr]

not to jump al over you but how is the electric chair horrible? i knew a guy that was driven around houston to many differnt ATMs so that he could withdrawl money for the guys that were forcing him to do it. The whole time there was a shotgun to the back of his head. When the ATM finally said decline the trigger was pulled. This was a man that had 2 children and a wife. He was so baddly disfigured from the blast that he was creamated. His killer got a shot. a shot that made him pass out and slowly drift into oblivion never to return. This is a peaceful way to go. Just like falling asleep. I think that the punishment for a crime should be atleast equal to the crime commited.

 

[red91]

I agree. I was merely bringing about the point. Too many people just use the "eye for an eye" thing. I'm no bible scholar and I'm hardly religious, but I believe Jesus also said he was there to fulfill the law, but that nothing would be changed.

ah...he was there to fullfill Prophecy. He represented the law that his Father would institute.

There would have been many changes... (I.E. the Jewish religious hierarchy to start with)

 

[rock rash]

no death penalty? Ok. I can respect that....how about the right to life?

agree or disagree...

i knew that was going to come up...i am pro choice, but only within the first few weeks...i am very oppossed to partial birth abortions...


but that is not the topic at hand