It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What do you think about the death Penalty?

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Thanks again doctor, how much are these sessions costing me anyway?


just proving my point.



Pointless. If you're claiming perfection...or we cannot even agree on the definition of the word itself, we're not going to be able to relate or progress.


no we can't progress because you're acting like a child by not answering the questions. you're like a child throwing a tantrom. we could make progress and i want to make it, but you're holding us both back. i'm not the problem here, you are. i claim perfection in the way that i don't want to change anything about myself, and that i don't need or want anything more than i have already got. i'm not saying i can't learn anything new, or gain more knowledge, because i can. so in that light of perfection, i wouldn't be perfect, because i don't know everything. however, because i don't 'want' to know everything, it has no relevance to perfection in me anymore, hence i'm perfect in the sense that i don't need to change, i don't want to change, i don't need anything or want anything more or less... can you not understand that? or are you still saying that means i cannot progress?




posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
can you not understand that?


Certainly, but that kind of relativism is not something that one can work with (my answers would have value = 0)...at least not one with my current skill-set.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
or are you still saying that means i cannot progress?


I'm saying I'm no help because of these obstacles.


[edit on 27-1-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Certainly, but that kind of relativism is not something that one can work with...at least not one with my current skill-set.


the thing is most or some people sit there and want to change so much about themselves, whether it's by use of plastic surgery, or natural means, and all because they read it somewhere or see it in a magazine. i feel i don't need or want to change anything about myself in that way, hence in that light...i'm perfect. in others...maybe i'm not. but why dwell on those? why put yourself down? why not be positive and confident...rather than to sit there and dwell on things you want to change about yourself.



I'm saying I'm no help because of these obstacles.


there only obstacles are the ones you are putting in place. i'm absolutly fine with discussing this. and i'm waiting for your answers, to the questions you asked. when you feel happy to, post them, or don't.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
the thing is most or some people sit there and want to change so much about themselves, whether it's by use of plastic surgery, or natural means, and all because they read it somewhere or see it in a magazine.


I didn't ask if you were physically perfect. I asked if you were perfect. En totalidad, perfecto. I'm not sure why you'd think I'd even ask or care about such a thing in the first place.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
i feel i don't need or want to change anything about myself in that way, hence in that light...i'm perfect.


I didn't ask if you wanted to change something about yourself. Do you see where this communication is breaking down?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
in others...maybe i'm not.


So you are not perfect?


Originally posted by shaunybaby
but why dwell on those?


I didn't say dwell, but there's a progression to follow I was hoping to get to. I see you use this technique to facilitate changing paradigms as well.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
why put yourself down? why not be positive and confident...rather than to sit there and dwell on things you want to change about yourself.


Agreed...but don't know what that has to do with how to brew good Oolong tea. (mmmm Oolong tea...SOMEBODY TAKE ME TO CHINA! >_< )




Originally posted by shaunybaby
there only obstacles are the ones you are putting in place.


Hehe, I've been in a relationship long enough to know when someone is playing the blame-game...and I didn't bring any dice.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
i'm absolutly fine with discussing this. and i'm waiting for your answers, to the questions you asked. when you feel happy to, post them, or don't.


Aight.

[edit on 27-1-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I didn't ask if you were physically perfect. I asked if you were perfect. En totalidad, perfecto. I'm not sure why you'd think I'd even ask or care about such a thing in the first place.


so what 'perfection' were you asking me about? whether my personality is perfect? whether my life is perfect? whether my hair is perfect? whether my clothes are perfect? what aspect/s were you asking that were therefore 'perfect'? what is 'perfection' in your eyes?



So you are not perfect?


if perfection is knowing everything. then i'm not perfect. but then again, if i don't want to know everything, and am happy not knowing everything, then in that sense i would therefore be perfect in myself. sure i may not be perfect to you, but that's not what you asked.

and have you noticed this topic of this thread is not 'saintforgod Vs shaunybaby'. in your own words in previous threads to myself 'stick to the topic at hand'.

[edit on 27-1-2006 by shaunybaby]



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
My opinion on the death penalty...

Two wrongs don't make a right. Death does not solve the problem of murder.


The Law of god is, that the true consequenses of wrong and cruelty and crime shall be their punnishment; and the injured and wronged and indignant are as much His instruments to enforce that law, as the diseases and public detestation, and the verdict of history and execration of posterity are.

-albert pike



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eyeofhorus
Death does not solve the problem of murder.


the question isn't whether or not the DP solves the problem of murder, it's whether it's wrong or right. The only alternative to DP for a convicted murderer would be prison...why's that justice? they get a free room, three square meals...and that's already more than some people have in this world, and this is handed to murderers. that's the problem, not the DP.

[edit on 27-1-2006 by shaunybaby]



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by Eyeofhorus
Death does not solve the problem of murder.

they get a free room, three square meals...and that's already more than some people have in this world, and this is handed to murderers. that's the problem, not the DP.

[edit on 27-1-2006 by shaunybaby]


Looking for an agrument huh?

First if the DP is an Ends to the Means of bringing justice to murderers, then shouldn't it solve the problem. Life sentancing accomplishes the same thing. Removing the offender from society. Death removes the offender not only from society but also from the realm of consciousness. This punnishment is therefore unnecesary if they were already going to be removed from society. Therefore Life sentancing is the more ethical of the two, and under Us constitution, more fitting to our justice system.

The DP is wrong. Man does not have the authority to take another man's life. The only person that can give the gift of life and take it away is that higher power that we cannot comprehend. Even if somebody has killed, that grants no man power to take another man's life. Logically, you would have to kill the people that condemned the man to death, and the executioner. There is no such thing as a licence to kill.

The reason there should be no right to use the Death penalty is because of the due process law. That is why it usually takes so long to kill somebody, because the appeal process is necessary. If the court system fails and puts Just ONE innocent man to death, justice has failed. That is why the death penalty is inherantly and logically wrong under our consitiution and laws.

Our justice system is based on the principle of rehabilititaton. The Death penalty does not fit this principle.

I saw a show on discovery the other day about a lady whose father (who was also a reverend) was brutally murdered in the room next to hers, and she was so brutally wounded by the attacker that she couldn't get into the next room to be with her father as he died, miserably on the floor like an animal. After she recovered she spent the majority of her time saving the killer's life from the system, because it is what her father would have wanted her to do. Risking seven year contempt charge for putting the death penalty on trial, she almost couldnt testify, without imprisoning herself. But she did it because she knew the DP was wrong.

What she did was honorable, she wanted to end this murder tragedy with something positive, rather than succumb to the negativity of the system. she dealt with her anger and hatred, rather than displacing it. Killing someone with the DP usually only displaces a persons anger, so they can get through the days. This is a principle put forth by pascall, called diversion. It is much easier to divert your feelings then to deal with them to attain peace.

Death at the Hands of man is wrong, that is why we justify punnishing it with more death. How is that right at all, if killing is so wrong to begin with?

Don't want to feed them huh? Why don't you focus on welfare then, it spends way more on people freeloading, than is spent on inmates in jail. So we should starve prisoners? Because it costs too much to treat them ethically? They aren't in a resort mind you, they are in prison. They get raped, beat up, and brutalized everyday. We are paying for thier punnishment, you would be supporting them through welfare probably anyways. Plus the majority of your money goes to improsoning non-violent offenders, like drug users, and coorporate scandalists. The difference in cost is not much between death row and life in prison. Economics is not a very good core value to judge a man's life. Man's life is priceless.

Prison is not going away. You will be paying for it for the rest of your life, through taxes. But if you want these people running around on the streets, you can be in charge of taking them out yourself. Maybe that satisfies the god-complex. Or if you believe in punnishiing people by cutting thier hands off, castrating them or killing them, then maybe you should consider moving to Riad, or some third world country with no evolved justice system.


[edit on 27-1-2006 by Eyeofhorus]

[edit on 27-1-2006 by Eyeofhorus]



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eyeofhorus
There is no such thing as a licence to kill.


what about in war? do laws not apply to wars? ...why is that. are soldiers special or are countries special, and exempt from the law, while they serve during a war.

honestly, i really don't care about the death penalty. i wouldn't vote for it to be brought in to operation in england, i'd most likely vote against it. this just shows, that even though america may be the most powerful nation in the world, they are still lacking behind in basic morals. this is the 21st century, and for entertainment they love nothing better than a bit of ultimate fighting championship, and for punishment...nothing beats the taste of death. it's barbaric to say the least. although saying that, i don't believe a serial murderer or rapist should be given or allowed to keep the gift of life. and to let them have a cell, and three square meals...there's thousands on the streets of england who don't even have that. that's the hypocrisy of it all.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 07:06 PM
link   
I've explained my views enough times in this thread, no need to repeat myself any more. You guys should keep the religion view in the religion boards imo though.

[edit on 27-1-2006 by Panzeroth]



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 06:05 AM
link   
Personally, I don't really think that the death penalty is the harshest punishment a court can impose on someone. I think it would be far worse to get life imprisonment.

There is also the issue of relying on the courts to be certain enough that a person is guilty as this is one decision that will be pretty difficult to overturn down the track if a poor decision is made.

I also feel for the person responsible for carrying out the execution, the guilt must be overwhelming!

Often people related to victims of murder are in favour of the death penalty. Personally I can't see much sense in pursuing punishment of criminals that have wronged you other than stopping them from reoffending, as it is unlikely that your loved one will be brought back by their punishment. Then again I have been fortunate enough to date to have not experienced this situation, so perhaps I would feel differently if I had. I realise this is an unpopular view, but it's just my opinion and no offence is intended to those with differing points of view.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Fry em! And if you ain't gonna fry em, then take away their cable, outside privelages, free health care, and everything else I'm paying for. Anyone that does a bad enough crime to rate the death penalty doesn't deserve any of those things.

As far as the guilt thing, that's why they used to have three guys pull the switch(es). They had two dummy switches, and one real one, but nobody ever knew which was which. Same with lethal injection. They have three controls set up, and no one knows if it's the real one or not.

[edit on 1/31/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Here's my stance:

"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 right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?" - from Matthew 5


Ok I respect your reasoning, attatched as it is to the "good book"...

Anyway in light of the above, in light of your stance please answer this:

If your 4 year old daughter was raped, tortured and murdered would you then pass to the murderer your 5 year old daughter to face the same?

If your 4 year old son was raped, tortured and murdered would you then pass to the murderer your 5 year old son to face the same?

If your mother was raped, tortured and murdered would you then pass to the murderer your grandmother to face the same?

IMHO Your "stance" dictates only the answer YES to all of these questions, please prove to me otherwise...



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
i think the 'good book' shows us and teaches us a way of life, 'if life were perfect'. the fact that you are not a beautiful and unique snowflake, seems to pass many. we are not perfect, and nor is that place we call home, but one book teaches us of perfection, taught us and showed us using jesus. he was supposedly the most perfect human ever, although what do you define as perfect? he still lost his temper and turned tables out of anger in the temple. if he had emotions such as anger, he must have been human, the only godness about him would be the godness you put in to him, otherwise, he's just like you and i. the 'good book' teaches us many things, but it does not teach us how to deal with rapists and murderers, we have to decide for ourselves what we do. what did god do when he didn't like what he saw? he supposedly wiped out the planet's population with a flood...did god show them the other cheek, did he also go two miles with them, did he give his tunic and his cloak also...very doubtful. but wait, it doesn't matter...he's god. the rules don't apply to him. well if rules don't apply to him, then nor do our rules and laws.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by mytym
I also feel for the person responsible for carrying out the execution, the guilt must be overwhelming!


In an earlier post I outlined a 2 convictions of 1st degree murder as the minimum requirement necessary to be a candidate for 'collateral damage', 'abortion', 'termination', 'downsizing', or 'execution'. In panzeroths example, people are killed for threatening his comrades in arms, yet back home, people who actually kill innocents are allowed to live. In some cases after dozens of sadistic murders of vulnerable members of society.
The current serial killer trial here is a good example. If convicted of the 20 or so killings of women, this monster will get free post-secondary education, shelter, clothing, and better food than many innocent poor folk.
This could go on for 40+ years, costing well over a million dollars to carry out.
In my view, this subhuman demon should be executed. It should be done humanely, and cheaply, and if I was allowed to be the one to do it, I would be able to sleep contentedly that night. Of course the act itself would be hard, but it would be my honor to do it.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
and have you noticed this topic of this thread is not 'saintforgod Vs shaunybaby'.


Sorry if something I said made you feel this way, I'll disengage.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
in your own words in previous threads to myself 'stick to the topic at hand'.


I was hoping to show a perspective that was to the topic at hand, though would be impossible to if we cannot agree that you're not perfect.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by sobolwolf
Ok I respect your reasoning, attatched as it is to the "good book"...


Thankya, much appreciated.



Originally posted by sobolwolf
Anyway in light of the above, in light of your stance please answer this:


I shall do my best.


Originally posted by sobolwolf
If your 4 year old daughter was raped, tortured and murdered would you then pass to the murderer your 5 year old daughter to face the same?


No. I'd not let this brother stumble further: "Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble."


Originally posted by sobolwolf
If your 4 year old son was raped, tortured and murdered would you then pass to the murderer your 5 year old son to face the same?


Same answer.


Originally posted by sobolwolf
If your mother was raped, tortured and murdered would you then pass to the murderer your grandmother to face the same?


Can I have new question? Getting tired of answering the same one.


Originally posted by sobolwolf
IMHO Your "stance" dictates only the answer YES to all of these questions, please prove to me otherwise...


It apprears your opinion made an assumption before letting the "questionee" answer. I believe in the WHOLE book, not just parts for convenience.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Sorry if something I said made you feel this way, I'll disengage.


the reason was so we could stick to topic. which prior to me saying so, was going way off topic.



I was hoping to show a perspective that was to the topic at hand, though would be impossible to if we cannot agree that you're not perfect.


say i'm not perfect. what does that matter...and what would therefore be your point?



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
No. I'd not let this brother stumble further: "Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble."

But to me this is conflict with your "stance" of "turn the other check...", so you are saying that if someone slaps you it is possible to "prevent him stumbling further" ie kick the stuffing outta him?

Originally posted by saint4God
I believe in the WHOLE book, not just parts for convenience.


Are you sure about this... seems to me like you are pulling parts out here and there to suit your needs...



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by sobolwolf
But to me this is conflict with your "stance" of "turn the other check...", so you are saying that if someone slaps you it is possible to "prevent him stumbling further" ie kick the stuffing outta him?


Hehe, no. What harm is there in me taking another slap? It's about the soul. Is the soul feeling rage from getting slap, or empathy for the one slapping? The Bible isn't about pointless rules, it's about understanding God and each other.


Originally posted by saint4God
Are you sure about this... seems to me like you are pulling parts out here and there to suit your needs...


If you think I'm taking it out of context, go back and read the whole chapter I'm using it from. Or, better, read the whole book and explain how I'm not using it properly. The reason why that skewed website did not, is because it negated the crimes that lead to punishment, and also the reprecussions of mankind taking the law into their own hands. Anyone who has read the whole Old Testament should see that.


[edit on 31-1-2006 by saint4God]




top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join