Do you believe in death penalty

Do you believe in the death penity?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 42.4%
  • No

    Votes: 8 24.2%
  • Only for certain reasons

    Votes: 9 27.3%
  • other

    Votes: 2 6.1%

  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .
I found it interesting that our (US) constitution is based upon the laws of Noah. (the Noahide laws) (or Noachide)

The U.S. Congress officially recognized the Noahide Laws in legislation which was passed by both houses. Congress and the President of the United States, George Bush, indicated in Public Law 102-14, 102nd Congress, that the United States of America was founded upon the Seven Universal Laws of Noah, and that these Laws have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization. They also acknowledged that the Seven Laws of Noah are the foundation upon which civilization stands and that recent weakening of these principles threaten the fabric of civilized society, and that justified preoccupation in educating the Citizens of the United States of America and future generations is needed. For this purpose, this Public Law designated March 26, 1991 as Education Day, U.S.A.

Since the time of Noah there are seven laws non-Jews were required to keep after becoming a worshiper of the God of Abraham. Keeping the Noahide laws did not save you -- even the Jews know that keeping the law does not save. Only the Messiah can save. These laws are simply instructions for our own good. The word law means instruction. The Noahide Laws based on Genesis nine are:

To behave justly in all relationships, and to establish courts of justice.
To refrain from blaspheming Gods name.
To refrain from practicing idolatry.
To avoid immoral practices, specifically incest and adultery.
To avoid shedding the blood of ones fellow man.
To refrain from robbing ones fellow man.
To refrain from eating a limb torn from a live animal.

(I think this was an article by Robert Clanton).

The word "avoid" is interesting here. I also think that the law has a set of type and a set of "beliefs". That is to say that if we put more emphasis on the word of the law, rather than the spirit of the law, then we really do not know the law. Since we do not debate upon religion here then this may lead to shaky ground. I merely wish to point out that old laws change with society and that society's concepts. Laws are based upon the idea that Man and his dealings should conduct himself and his business ethically, and with a thought to his fellow man.

Therefore, it is possible that each generation will form new concepts of old doctrines. It is part of the growth of both society and moral behaviors and attitudes. Thank goodness, because if it were not so, we would not develop.

For instance, one old book states that we may stone a person. That same book states that you may sell a relative into servitude. Laws, morals and attitudes grow with each new generation. Each branch or doctrine will develop differently, phrase and rephrase laws, doctrine and dogma.

Now, the question of death penalty - that can only be an individuals choice. I do not believe in it. Yes, I have had family members murdered. I have been the victim of intense violence. The death penalty does not provide comfort or closure. It creates more widows, orphans and victims. No, I am not a bleeding heart. I relish the idea of child predators being served up to lions Roman style. (poor lions) There are certain crimes that seem to demand "justice" by death. An earlier reference to Manson comes to mind.

The wait for these offenders to meet their fate is years or even decades. This is to be sure that all research has been done, I would assume. Even after the long wait, the excecution is not quickly done. Very few victims report solace after the excecution.

Then there are the ethical arguments of age, race, sex, mental ability and sexual orientation. Children, mental illness such as retardation - what consideration here? When a child of the older teens commits something so hideous or heinous? Does any "sane" person kill?

I cannot decide for others, but my opionion is that "an eye for an eye leaves both blind".

Hold on, let me get my flame resistant cape of invisibility on .... ok... now... start typing!
 
I found it interesting that our (US) constitution is based upon the laws of Noah. (the Noahide laws) (or Noachide)

The U.S. Congress officially recognized the Noahide Laws in legislation which was passed by both houses. Congress and the President of the United States, George Bush, indicated in Public Law 102-14, 102nd Congress, that the United States of America was founded upon the Seven Universal Laws of Noah, and that these Laws have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization. They also acknowledged that the Seven Laws of Noah are the foundation upon which civilization stands and that recent weakening of these principles threaten the fabric of civilized society, and that justified preoccupation in educating the Citizens of the United States of America and future generations is needed. For this purpose, this Public Law designated March 26, 1991 as Education Day, U.S.A.

Since the time of Noah there are seven laws non-Jews were required to keep after becoming a worshiper of the God of Abraham. Keeping the Noahide laws did not save you -- even the Jews know that keeping the law does not save. Only the Messiah can save. These laws are simply instructions for our own good. The word law means instruction. The Noahide Laws based on Genesis nine are:

To behave justly in all relationships, and to establish courts of justice.
To refrain from blaspheming Gods name.
To refrain from practicing idolatry.
To avoid immoral practices, specifically incest and adultery.
To avoid shedding the blood of ones fellow man.
To refrain from robbing ones fellow man.
To refrain from eating a limb torn from a live animal.

(I think this was an article by Robert Clanton).

The word "avoid" is interesting here. I also think that the law has a set of type and a set of "beliefs". That is to say that if we put more emphasis on the word of the law, rather than the spirit of the law, then we really do not know the law. Since we do not debate upon religion here then this may lead to shaky ground. I merely wish to point out that old laws change with society and that society's concepts. Laws are based upon the idea that Man and his dealings should conduct himself and his business ethically, and with a thought to his fellow man.

Therefore, it is possible that each generation will form new concepts of old doctrines. It is part of the growth of both society and moral behaviors and attitudes. Thank goodness, because if it were not so, we would not develop.

For instance, one old book states that we may stone a person. That same book states that you may sell a relative into servitude. Laws, morals and attitudes grow with each new generation. Each branch or doctrine will develop differently, phrase and rephrase laws, doctrine and dogma.

Now, the question of death penalty - that can only be an individuals choice. I do not believe in it. Yes, I have had family members murdered. I have been the victim of intense violence. The death penalty does not provide comfort or closure. It creates more widows, orphans and victims. No, I am not a bleeding heart. I relish the idea of child predators being served up to lions Roman style. (poor lions) There are certain crimes that seem to demand "justice" by death. An earlier reference to Manson comes to mind.

The wait for these offenders to meet their fate is years or even decades. This is to be sure that all research has been done, I would assume. Even after the long wait, the excecution is not quickly done. Very few victims report solace after the excecution.

Then there are the ethical arguments of age, race, sex, mental ability and sexual orientation. Children, mental illness such as retardation - what consideration here? When a child of the older teens commits something so hideous or heinous? Does any "sane" person kill?

I cannot decide for others, but my opionion is that "an eye for an eye leaves both blind".

Hold on, let me get my flame resistant cape of invisibility on .... ok... now... start typing!

What do you mean, "even the Jews"? That seems anti Semitic.
 
No, it means that they (the Jews) were the ones who held the original law, in contrast to the new Christians who were learning and needed instruction. I originally thought the same thing as you. Perhaps I should have edited for clarity. As usual, thanks for pointing out an oversight. Perhaps the word "even" should be removed. However, the gist of the article remains the same.
 
I didn't vote. I don't know how to pick yes, no, for certain reasons, or other. Because in recent years, some people who have been on death row end up getting exonerated (found innocent) when DNA evidence proved that the killer was someone else. So what about all those who were already executed but MIGHT have been innocent? We've read in the papers that this has happened.
 
Well, I ultimately agree with you on the death penalty, but I'm really not sure how all the biblical stuff fits in to this discussion. The code of Noah? Um, how does that have anything to do with the ethical correctness of the death penalty in the 21st century?


Big loooooooooooooong post
 
I am against the death penalty.

Economically, it's more expensive to put someone to death than to have them serve prison sentences.

There is also the chance that an innocent man could be executed, which would be a vast injustice. I also think that minorities have a higher rate of getting the death penalty, which is another injustice.

But there are cases where people commit particularly heinous crimes where you can only wonder.
 
Personally, I'm all for putting murderers to death HOWEVER legally, I am against death penalty. Our justice system is imperfect and unequal. Notice the unusual high rate of black murderers compared to white murderers? There's a huge difference on treatments of ethnic groups. And we have many innocent convicts executed and that's wrong.

Yeah, what he said.
 
I'm sorry to hear about your Uncles tragedy, Chris' mom. That's terrible.
I am 100% in favor of the death penalty. Most murders are committed by psychopaths that don't have any conscience but I'm sure they get to thinking some when they know
they're going to be executed. When the day comes, and they sit in that chair, they
know that the one and only person who put them in that electric chair was themselves.
I voted "yes"

Arizona Girl (Karen)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Personally I don't think they kill enough felons. And the methods are weak.

BRING BACK THE GUILLOTINE!
 
For me I'd say no, but for my brother I'd say yes. My brother supports it because he believes a killer on death row has gotten what he deserves. His death is for the cause of a death. This is how he puts it, "it's a fair death."

I don't support it, but I have never dissagreed with those who do. I mean the idea that an eye for an eye makes sense and it really does.

I just don't see it that way. This is how I see it. Kill someone because he killed someone-it makes us no better than the killer. It makes us a killer too!

Thats how I see it and I told my bother this. He replied with, "were killing a killer and this makes us a killer for killers. Don't become a killer and we killers won't have to kill those who have killed.

I just believe that it does not make us any better than a killer.


He always tells me, "you always were the soft one." I guess maybe I am being too soft.
 
I believe in it. Only when 100% certain of guilt. And only in certain circumstances.
Is it a deterent? On the one hand...when criminals are in deep they tend to throw everything to the wind and act out in bad ways. But a life sentence also has the same effect. gone over the edge of no return.
 
I am sorry about your uncle. There have a few cases about people being in jail for years for a crime they did no . They were found innocent by using DNA
evidence , it would had been horrible if these people were given the death penalty for a crime they did not do! This made it hard for me to be for the
death penalty , how do you know you really have the right person! There is a well know case about a deaf man being found at a crime scene of a murder, he was arrested The guy could not speak , signs or write . A lawyer heard about the case and was able to prove the man was not guilty. That guy could had gotten the death penalty if a lawyer had not taken an interest in the case!
 
One of my favorite quotes "An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind." ~Mahatma Gandhi

So, no I do not support death penalty for criminals.
 
in old day, it was very cheap and very cruel, they hang, shot or behead and toss in fire.

Today, that required more people to take job on dead body. Sheesh
 
Back
Top