HELP ME PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!! - pipTalk Forums

How to Join	Member's Area	Private Library	Search	Sanctuary		Login
Main Forums	Discussion	Tech Talk	Mature Content	Archives	A home without a wall, Our haven without ends, A circle we all call Our Family of Friends!

KristieSue

Senior Member

since 2003-01-31

Posts 1460
PA, US

0 posted 2003-09-10 10:33 AM

I have a research paper due tomorrow morning on the death penalty. I know this could turn into an all-out debate, but all I need is public opinion.

Yes or No and a BRIEF (2-3 sentences) explanation of your opinion.

Thanks!

Failure isn't failure if a lesson from it is learned ~ KS

Opeth
Senior Member

since 2001-12-13

Posts 1543
The Ravines

1 posted 2003-09-10 10:44 AM

I am opposed to the death penalty for the following reasons:

~ The administration of the policy is unfair, in that minorities and the poor have a far greater chance to be put to death via the death penalty than the the majority and the rich.

~ It does NOT (edited) reduce the murder rate as the overwhelming majority of murders are committed without planning, but are crimes of passion.

~ And finally, since innocent people are known to have been put to death, that in itself, is ample reason to abandon the death penalty...if for this reason only, at least until the policy can be enforced flawlessly.

I hope this helps.

[This message has been edited by Opeth (09-10-2003 01:43 PM).]

KristieSue

Senior Member

since 2003-01-31

Posts 1460
PA, US

2 posted 2003-09-10 10:45 AM

you're a doll...that's exactly what I need, but about 3 or 4 more volunteers! LOL

Failure isn't failure if a lesson from it is learned ~ KS

Jason Lyle
Senior Member

since 2003-02-07

Posts 1438
With my darkling

3 posted 2003-09-10 10:56 AM

I am against it also, but for differant reasons.Reason one, innocents do get caught in this system.Reason two, If they are truly guilty death is release, I would rather have them suffer for a lifetime, for the pain they inflicted.I know that is evil, but I pick up my paper and read about another child suffering, and I want the person to pay, to really pay.And real pain is living with it.Sorry if I am harsh, but I am honest.

Jason

KristieSue

Senior Member

since 2003-01-31

Posts 1460
PA, US

4 posted 2003-09-10 10:59 AM

Hmmm...a jail cell surrounded by the child's voice laughing and talking, and posters or the child's face...

that would be a pretty good torture, huh?

except for the total heartless

Failure isn't failure if a lesson from it is learned ~ KS

hush
Senior Member

since 2001-05-27

Posts 1653
Ohio, USA

5 posted 2003-09-10 01:20 PM

I am against the death penalty, because I think it is more about vengeance than deterrence... the threat of that one murderer can be adequately contained by a life of imprisonment, in solitary confinement, if need be. The idea should be to protect society from a known threat, not to show that killing is wrong by... killing.

Marge Tindal

Member Empyrean

since 1999-11-06

Posts 42384
Florida's Foreverly Shores

6 posted 2003-09-10 03:02 PM

I am for the death penalty, quickly administered after conviction.

Murder of someone that I loved has touched my life.
Conviction of the guilty party took place.
Appeal after appeal after appeal, full of senseless loopholes,
leaves me waiting for the (***self-censored****) to die~

~*When the heart grieves over what it has lost,
the spirit rejoices over what it has left.
- Sufi epigram
noles1@totcon.com

Sunshine

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-25

Posts 63354
Listening to every heart

7 posted 2003-09-10 04:21 PM

quote:

Question: How come in one part of the Bible it says, "An eye for an eye," and then in other parts it talks about the importance of forgiving?

Answer: Great question. I think that the most important thing to understand on this subject is the difference between personal relationships and the legal justice.

In the area of legal justice we are talking about what the government's right and responsibility is in regards to those that break the law. Both the Old and New Testament specifically talk about the importance of justice. One of the basic foundations of justice is the "eye for an eye" principle. If you steal, you must repay. If you kill, you may be killed. While there are certainly variations of this, few would argue that it is a basic principle of justice. Someone who does wrong, should be punished by the authorities to the same degree...no more, no less.

However, there were some people, especially the Pharisees in the New Testament who wanted to apply that to their personal relationships as well. So Jesus comes to them in Matthew 5:38 and says, "You have heard that it was said, "eye for eye, and tooth for tooth," but I tell you do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the cheek, turn to him the other also."

Jesus makes it clear that we are not to hold grudges and DEMAND justice for those that hurt us in a personal way, but rather we are to forgive, turn the other cheek, and with humility consider others better than ourselves.

So in the area of legal justice, an eye for an eye is a important and ongoing biblical principle that every culture practices, but in the area of personal relationships, Jesus tells us that this cannot be our attitude.

- Rob Rienow

excerpt from http://www.studentbodyworld.com/Q%20and%20A/The%20Bible/an_eye_for_an_eye.htm

It was a loaded question, Kristie.  Not one that can be answered in a sentence of two, or three, remarks.

Everyone's feelings are going to be different.  Are we at war?  Haven't I been told to "kill the enemy"?  Is this not murdering one of God's children?  Won't that son's mother wish me dead, and wish there were a penalty of some sort to extract the breath from my body?

My private property, invaded?  A murdering thief comes in to steal, and possibly kill me, or mine?  And does?  I would want justice to be as swift to that murdering scoundral as in the time it took him to take mine from me.

Yet....

Vengence is mine, sayeth the Lord.

Right?  Wrong?  It's a personal decision gone amuck in the legal process.  I know what I feel, and think, but it's not the answer for how many other people?

My opinion will stand that it will depend, always, on ALL of the facts, ALL of the time.  Based on those facts, and by a group of peers, should a judgment be rendered.

Sorry.  I've been in the legal profession WAY too long.

Jason Lyle
Senior Member

since 2003-02-07

Posts 1438
With my darkling

8 posted 2003-09-10 06:41 PM

Heartless is a mother drowning her children in a bathtub.

Jason

Essorant
Member Elite

since 2002-08-10

Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada

9 posted 2003-09-10 09:49 PM

No; killing is the resort of killers not saviors.

KristieSue

Senior Member

since 2003-01-31

Posts 1460
PA, US

10 posted 2003-09-18 01:34 PM

Thanks everyone for your opinion!!! Got an A on the paper!

Thanks again for your help!!!

"Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare." -Japanese Proverb
~ KS

Opeth
Senior Member

since 2001-12-13

Posts 1543
The Ravines

11 posted 2003-09-18 01:51 PM

If Christ were alive today (taking that He was indeed a Saviour), or even if he were alive back in the biblical days, and if someone approached his abode to do Him harm or possibly kill Him and His loved ones, would He condone the killing of or Himself kill the intruder? Would Christ tell others that in certain situations it is okay to kill another human being? And if so, where does it say in the NT that it is okay, ever, to kill another human being? Or is the justification of killing a human being, a "man-made" justification?

Bless those who hate, curse, & persecute you?

"If this grand panorama before me is what you call God...then God is not dead."

Essorant
Member Elite

since 2002-08-10

Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada

12 posted 2003-09-18 03:11 PM

I believe the legal system because of its power, should always be a savior. Isn't that what it is there for?
An individual person, however, that is not the law, in a circumstance where his life is by another trying to take it threatened and there is no alternative as action for saving himself and moving the man away from his wicked purpose, then the act of killing in defense is neither vicious nor virtuous, it is but the only salvation, and only justifiable for that reason. There is never a virtousness; the only justification is the lack of viciousness and the the condition of having no alternative.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (09-18-2003 05:38 PM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

13 posted 2003-09-20 08:42 PM

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=2067696

	⇧ top of page ⇧
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.