Is death sentence acceptable?

[Twilight Hue]

So you think the mentally ill deserve to be executed. Even though their state is partly genetic.

There's always lobotomies.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Have you noticed that the countries with death penalty for some reason have not been able to deter crime.

No, I have not noticed that.

I have noticed that in my state, when we reduce sentences, crime does go up.

 

[Trailblazer]

Executions are always a tragedy.

And deliberately planned and carried out vicious torturous murders that leave families forever grieving a lost child are not tragic?
Gimmie a break.

 

[Trailblazer]

Justice doesn't have to mean murder.

The death penalty is not murder. It is justice, in certain cases.

 

[Trailblazer]

What is justice? An eye for an eye, a life for a life.
I do think we should use the death penalty sparingly. You don't execute someone for killing another in the heat of the moment during a bar room brawl. Also, not when the conviction is based on eyewitness testimony alone -- DNA has proven eyewitness testimony to be far from reliable.

I agree but I guess we are kind of outnumbered.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, only when proven guilty beyond NO doubt of committing planned murder or serial murder. (Exeption might be brain tumors or physical reason causing the violence i.e. autistic or retarded mental problems.) Personally feel child molesters and violent rapest should be in the same category as murderers. And beyond that if sentenced the death penalty should be executed with in a year. People like that are monsters and psychologically perverted and will continue to harm if given the chance. Dont be fooled into thinking criminal minds like that can be changed. It would take rewiring the brain and memories which today is impossible and would be another moral debate do so.

Laws should be written to protect the innocent and promote society.

I agree with -- Yes, only when proven guilty beyond NO doubt of committing planned murder or serial murder. However, I do not place child molesters and violent rapest in the same category as murderers... an eye for an eye as long as it is 100% the murder was committed.

 

[Bdub13]

I have struggled with how to view it. I have settled on the idea that it is a just punishment for heinous crimes but too many innocent people are convicted and so to protect the innocent, it's not worth it to have it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Voted no.

Not that I agree with how the average prison system works.
But killing people seems like a waste.
Also sounds like fighting fire with fire.

And just about any statistic shows that it doesn't work as a deterrent at all. If anything, statistics show that it has a backwards effect.


Personally, I also think that several decades in prison is a lot bigger a punishment then just death.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I have struggled with how to view it. I have settled on the idea that it is a just punishment for heinous crimes but too many innocent people are convicted and so to protect the innocent, it's not worth it to have it.

This is why I say it should never be used in cases where the verdict relies solely on the unreliable memories of witnesses. But when you are talking about things like DNA evidence, it becomes a lot different. Listen, when you raid a man's home, and he has a torture chamber in his basement, a closet full of photographs of children in his closet, and the graves of 16 kids in his backyard, it's kind of a no-brainer. It becomes an insult to the memory of those dear children that such a person is allowed to continue to breath.

 

[Twilight Hue]

And deliberately planned and carried out vicious torturous murders that leave families forever grieving a lost child are not tragic?
Gimmie a break.

When did I ever imply that????

 

[Trailblazer]

When did I ever imply that????

You didn't, I did. I was just comparing the two situations.
Sorry if you thought you implied that.

 

[Dell]

I agree with -- Yes, only when proven guilty beyond NO doubt of committing planned murder or serial murder. However, I do not place child molesters and violent rapest in the same category as murderers... an eye for an eye as long as it is 100% the murder was committed.

Oh Ok... for child molesters if they can swim through a 100 yard alligator farm, they can live in a 10 by 10 cell with bubba... yes I'm joking...

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh Ok... for child molesters if they can swim through a 100 yard alligator farm, they can live in a 10 by 10 cell with bubba... yes I'm joking...

The salient difference is that children can recover from child molestation but nobody can recover from being murdered, at least not in this world.... I am not saying it is easy to recover from child molestation but it can be done...

What is a theistic atheist anyway, I never heard of that?

 

[Dell]

The salient difference is that children can recover from child molestation but nobody can recover from being murdered, at least not in this world.... I am not saying it is easy to recover from child molestation but it can be done...

What is a theistic atheist anyway, I never heard of that?

I had tagged myself as agnostic but chose recently "theistic atheist" as one that believes all known theistic teachings about a God to be false. Expecially in a sense of eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. The agnostic in me thinks maybe a possible chance of a super highly intelligent ancient species that seeded life and is now nowhere to be found, but no diety. Abiogenesis on this earth is still hard for me to comprehend....

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I had tagged myself as agnostic but chose recently "theistic atheist" as one that believes all known theistic teachings about a God to be false. Expecially in a sense of eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. The agnostic in me thinks maybe a possible chance of a super highly intelligent ancient species that seeded life and is now nowhere to be found, but no diety. Abiogenesis on this earth is still hard for me to comprehend....

The term "theistic atheist" is just to confusing. People can't "figure out" that it means what you are saying it means. They depend on you telling them. That defeats the purpose of having the label.

 

[Trailblazer]

I had tagged myself as agnostic but chose recently "theistic atheist" as one that believes all known theistic teachings about a God to be false. Especially in a sense of eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient.

What brought you to that conclusion about the theistic teachings?

 

[Dell]

The term "theistic atheist" is just to confusing. People can't "figure out" that it means what you are saying it means. They depend on you telling them. That defeats the purpose of having the label.

Ok maybe the tag is too much drama, I'll take your advice it is confusing, maybe just "Atheists" since the meaning is already a-theist. Thanks for the input.

 

[Dell]

What brought you to that conclusion about the theistic teachings?

In short to answer w/o breaking a RF rule.. A fascination with physics, cosmology, paleontology, and archeology. Nobody raised as a Christian can follow science without having to rethink biblical teaching. I find the two don't compare well. When I came to the conclusion there is no such thing as a "physically impossibile event", i.e. "miracles".. well theology unraveled just about every where...

 

[Trailblazer]

Nobody raised as a Christian can follow science without having to rethink biblical teaching. I find the two don't compare well.

I agree if you interpret the Bible the way most Christians do.
But just because Christianity is in-congruent with science that does not mean that every theist religion is in-congruent with science. The Baha'i Faith is a theistic religion and it teaches the harmony of science and religion and that if religion is contrary to science it is mere superstition.

• FOURTH PRINCIPLE—THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE RELATION BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE
• Science and Religion
• The Scientific Religion – The Baha’is
• Bahá'í Faith and science
• Science, Religion, and the Bahá’í Faith
• A Baha’i Take on the Creation/Evolution Debate

 

[Dell]

I agree if you interpret the Bible the way most Christians do.
But just because Christianity is in-congruent with science that does not mean that every theist religion is in-congruent with science. The Baha'i Faith is a theistic religion and it teaches the harmony of science and religion and that if religion is contrary to science it is mere superstition.

• FOURTH PRINCIPLE—THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE RELATION BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE
• Science and Religion
• The Scientific Religion – The Baha’is
• Bahá'í Faith and science
• Science, Religion, and the Bahá’í Faith
• A Baha’i Take on the Creation/Evolution Debate

Yea, Christianity that promotes the Old Earth Creationist viewpoint which heavily supports intelligent design, also claims harmony between theism and science. They believe science and the bible must harmonize because the bible is inspired by God. Most OEC believe every scientific discovery from the big bang, to evolution, to development of man, but all done by design for Gods plan of salvation, resurrection, judgment, Heaven or Hell, etc...

Theism taught by Islam, Christianity, Judaism Hinduism or Baha’i has a Deity God creator as the reason for everything. And I imagine you might view God similar like Christians as eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. To me.. that doesn't mix well with physics no matter how you try to harmonize it. The idea of a holy deity God creator above all laws of physics is man's creation, like other idols of the bronze age.