Death Penalty/Capital Punishment : Your Say!

The one percent are the innocent, remember? ie the ones who didn't commit a crime.

The Bible also says we should stone adulteresses, kill those who touch the skin of a pig and a lorge number of other, reasonably nasty punishments for what would appear small crimes.

So I guess we should leave the bible out of it.

Oh, wait, those punishments are listed in the OT, which was superceded by the words of Christ:

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Let's leave the bible out of it by mutual agreement then. I will, if you will.

As for this specific case, unfortunately it's the law in Singapore and I find myself agreeing with Figjam(just ask him:lol and ImJaded. It's the law, and when I first flew into Changi over 10 years ago it was in red writing on bloody great signs all the way to the immigration desk.

Plus my memory stretches all the way back to Barlow and Chambers. Not to mention Nicole's mini-series Bangkok Hilton, or Claire Danes' effort Brokedown Palace.

It's a standard sentence across most of SEAsia.

The problem is that most of those who get done have run out of money, can't get home and gotten desperate and taken the worst offer to come along instead of walking into the Embassy.

Again, you just rip from the Bible as you see fit.
Through ignorance, one might think the Bible would have us do as you assert, but you are missing the difference between the Old Covenant and the new one.

Granted, theOld Tesatment is much more interesting and all, but the NBew one is better for us, personally.

You didn't get that last post at all, did you?

Sure, I got it. I even took it home with me.

Why, do you want it back, now?

Indian giver!

I took parts, as I am a skimmer.

Still, I will keep tabs of the extra innocent people who get whacked byt eh released bad guys.

[edit on 5-12-2005 by Thomas Crowne]

TC, while i disagree with howl's condescending manner in regards to christians, i have to agree with her on the bible. you even allude to it, but seem to misinterpret.

the new testament represents the new covenent with us through christs blood, which for christians erases the old covenent. christ is most definitely anti-DP....."turn the other cheek" "he who is without sin" "go and sin no more"....etc.

I only have two problems with this.

One, I am most definitely not a "her" and, two, I am a Christian. I condescend to evangelicals who claim to be Christian but quote the Old Testament. The OT is not the word of God as preached by his son JC (if you are a believer), it is the laws and history of ancient Israel and her people, the Hebrews/Jews/Israelites, call them what you will.

Back then it was expected of you to sacrifice an animal (such as a sheep) to God's glory. The RSPCA might have something to say about that today. You were also proscribed from moving furniture on Saturday because if your house had a dirt floor and dragging your favourite armchair left a mark on that floor you could be said to have "plowed a furrow" on the Sabbath, which God strictly forbid the Jews from doing.

In regards to the australian-he knew the risks involved and he took them because of the amount of money you can make seeling smack in singapore. He knew what he was risking and he got caught.

In saying that, if the death penalty worked the prisons would be empty and these crimes wouldn't be commited.

If I had to choose between life in prison with no hope of parole or death, I would choose death.

Spending the rest of my life in prison holds more dread for me.

So if the idea is to punish the worst criminals, keep them behind bars...forever.

Letting them off the hook by killing them after a few years in prison is too easy on them.

sorry, but i think if most people see an avatar with a chick on it, they assume the person is a chick.

I'm firmly opposed to the death penalty.

I really couldn't care less about murderers-- that's not the point. The death penalty is irrational and counter-productive.

The underlying concept is that murder is such a heinous crime that the person who commits it has given up his/her right to live. Let's look at that objectively:

In effect, what we're saying is that killing people is so wrong that we must kill the people who kill people.

Say what?

If killing people is wrong (as it self-evidently is), then it's wrong. We simply can't legitimately say that it's okay sometimes. Why not? Because that's the same logic that the murderer uses. Murderers generally don't believe that they're objectively wrong-- they believe that, for whatever reason, they're justified in killing the person(s) they kill. And why shouldn't they? Society teaches them that killing people is okay sometimes-- if only one has a good enough reason. So they believe they have a good enough reason, and that it's therefore okay.

If our goal is to eliminate killing, then obviously the first thing we have to do is stop killing people ourselves.

So what do we do with murderers? Obviously they have given up the right to live in our society, so I would suggest essentially an "Escape from New York" solution. We should take a piece of unused land-- say an old Air Force firing range or something of the like, and put a wall around it. All we'd need to do is to make sure that there's a water source there, and maybe post a few guards on the outside to keep an eye out for tunnels and the like. It shouldn't even have a door or gate or anything of that nature, since nobody other than the criminals are going in, and NOBODY is coming out. Ever. They'd get dropped over the side-- lowered from a helicopter or such-- and would have to make their own way in whatever world existed inside the walls. They could live out their lives (or not) surrounded by their fellow murderers. If they died, then that would be their own tough luck, but the point is that WE would not be killing them. We would successfully remove them from society without the expense of housing them in regular prisons, we would force them to socialize only with people who had the same disregard for life that they had, and we would do that WITHOUT giving official sanction to the killing of people.

But-- that would never happen. Why not? For the same reason, in the end, that capital punishment exists-- because the power-mongers in government happen to like being able to kill people. That's an enormous power, and one that they're absolutely NOT going to give up. As a matter of fact, I would bet pretty much anything that anyone wants that the range of capital crimes is only going to increase over time. There's no greater power that a government can hold over its people than the power of life and death.

That, in itself, is another reason why capital punishment should be banned, but, as I said, that is actually the reason that it absolutely will NOT be.