Governor of Illinois commutes or pardons death row

[BearBryant]

inmates right before his term ends. What a gutless asshole.

[jbghostrat]

This really pisses me off! How can you just let people off death row without even reviewing their cases? It's like a big Joke, like no victim exists, no crime committed lets just let them out. 4 guys were just automatically set free. Hobley was one of them and 17 yrs. ago he killed a woman~ she burned to death. Can you imagine the pain she must of went through?! but let's let this guy out like it never happened cause we found that some were wrongfully sentenced!
Why not look at EACH INDIVIDUAL case?! innocent people shouldn't be in prison but convicted murderers shouldn't be set free!

This Ryan guy one day is going to find out what a BIG mistake he made! FUCKING CLUELESS IGNORANT MOTHERFUCKER!!!

:mad: :mad:

[mediafreak]

george ryan was elected becuz he was 'grandfatherly.' he had an undistinguishable career as lt. gov and sec of state. the only notable thing to come out of his tenure as sec of state is the license-for-bribes scandal where truckers and others bought licenses from corrupt folk - ryan's folks - in the state offices. ryan knew of the coverup (one or more of those licensed truckers eventually killed a family in a minivan).

but just to show you who he's letting go, i'll post some shorts from the chicago sun-times on who he's letting off easy:

Henry Brisbon

Brisbon and three other men decided to rob somebody. When they couldn't find the right pedestrian to rob in Kankakee, they drove toward Chicago on Interstate 57. While riding along, they came up with the idea of robbing motorists by staging phony accidents.

One of the killers tricked motorists out of their cars by asking them to inspect minor collision damage, then led them to Brisbon, who brandished the shotgun and robbed and shot them.

Betty Lou Harmon, 29, of suburban Darien, was forced to undress at gunpoint. She ran away, but was caught by Sanders, who led her to Brisbon, who fatally shot her in a field.

An engaged North Side couple, Dorothy Cerny and James Schmidt, both 25, who were returning from a family gathering in Matteson, also were shot to death by Brisbon after being stripped of their valuables.

Brisbon told the couple to "kiss your last kiss" before firing shotgun blasts into their backs as they lay on the side of the highway.

But Brisbon was not on Death Row for the I-57 murders. He was put there because he used a sharpened spoon to kill another inmate while in prison.

[mediafreak]

Danny Edwards

To make the point that he has been personally touched by the horror of murder, Ryan on Saturday described the murder of an old family friend, Kankakee businessman Stephen B. Small, in 1987, in a kidnapping plot.

Danny Edwards, who at the time was a small-time drug dealer and electrician in Kankakee, was found guilty of burying Small alive in a wooden box.

Edwards made an air hole in the box and apparently thought Small could survive for some time while he--Edwards--attempted to extort a $1 million ransom from Small's wealthy family. But Small died within four hours of being buried.

While conceding that the evidence against his client was "overwhelming"--Edwards was seen building the box, and his fingerprints were found inside--defense attorney Thomas Allen expressed surprise at the quick guilty verdict, calling the jury "the coldest I've ever seen."

[mediafreak]

Latasha Pulliam

In 1991, 6-year-old Shenosha Richard was playing in her South Side Chicago neighborhood when she was approached by Pulliam and Pulliam's boyfriend, Dwight Jordan. She went with them after they purchased her a bag of chips and promised to take her to a movie.

At Pulliam's apartment, over several hours, Pulliam and Jordan sexually assaulted the girl with a shoe polish applicator and a hammer, and then used the hammer to pulverize her skull, according to prosecutors. Pulliam also beat and strangled the girl.

Attorneys for Pulliam said she was drug-crazed at the time, but a court psychologist described her as "a female John Gacy" who got sexual satisfaction from hurting someone weaker than she.

for more: http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-death12s1.html

[McFly41]

The only justice now would be for Ryan to be put to death. All those deviants should be expelled from society and he lets them off with three squares a day on our dollar?
Someone will snuff his ass, or at least should!

[Piper]

Did he take them off death row, or actually let these fuckers go?

An overreaction either way. Yeah, those 4 may have been innocent. But review all the cases before you just wipe it away.

[Hootendooter]

Originally posted by BearBryant
Governor of Illinois commutes or pardons death row inmates right before his term ends. What a gutless asshole.


Illinois Nazis. Do we need to call Jake and Elwood?

[T_Schroll]

He commuted most their sentences to life in prison-no parole.

[McFly41]

"life in prison, no parole"...might as well be dead!

[mediafreak]

Originally posted by Hootendooter



Illinois Nazis. Do we need to call Jake and Elwood?

:huh:

:thinking:

[BearBryant]

Originally posted by McFly41
"life in prison, no parole"...might as well be dead!

except it costs about about $25,000 a year to house inmate.

[mailman]

Originally posted by BearBryant


except it costs about about $25,000 a year to house inmate.


Which IMO makes more sense to cap the fuckers after the 2nd conviction. Fuck the 20 some odd years going through all the appeals.

[Hootendooter]

Originally posted by mediafreak


:huh:

:thinking:


Reference to The Blues Brothers. Damn. I hate explaining myself.:)

[McFly41]

except it costs about about $25,000 a year to house inmate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which IMO makes more sense to cap the fuckers after the 2nd conviction. Fuck the 20 some odd years going through all the appeals.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My point exactly!
The world is HORRIBLY over populated with people who contribute nothing but hardship on humanity.
*If you commit a violent crime resulting in death, you should die!
*If you commit three violent crimes, three strikes, you should die!
*Any non-violent criminal with three strikes, gets life in prison WITH possible parole. Once paroled, you go back...you should die!
That includes drunk drivers...I got one, buddy of mine has 2 as of last weekend and I told him he gets another one and I'll string him up myself!
*And the worst offense of all, pedophilia. You do it once...YOU DIE!

[sadic1]

Good for him. Another murder doesn't fix the first ones. Eye for an eye is how Godless, uncivilized fucking Arabs live. Christians who believe in murder are fucking hypocrites. You can all yank bits and pieces out of your "Bibles" all you want to try to rationalize it, but then you should all have to do the injections yourself, then see if you feel like you murdered someone or not. 75% or more of all people in jail are there for nonviolent drug offenses. I think we can more than afford to keep violent criminals in jail if we got our priorities straight. I wouldn't mind reducing their quality of life while in prison, though. Capital punishment just enourages people to give in to their base desire and love for revenge. It's fucking weak, just like you guys.

[PantherPaul]

Originally posted by BearBryant


except it costs about about $25,000 a year to house inmate.

Compared to 100k a year to keep a person on death row. What with additional guards and safety measures

[plutosgirl]

I have always thought we need to take a small state, ie...Utah-clear it out-and put hardened criminals in there to fend for themselves. Heavily guard it with all the prison guards we now have and just let them either live amongst themselves and survive, living off the fruits of their labor, or kill each other out. I don't want to be inhumane, I guess we could drop ship them supplies in to survive with.....
Damn a bunch of supporting inmates who kill and kill and show no remorse for human life. I agree with Sadic that we need to prioritize our reasoning on why people should go to prison to begin with and make room for the ones who damn well need to be there. Ok I'm done.

[PantherPaul]

Originally posted by plutosgirl
I have always thought we need to take a small state, ie...Utah-clear it out-and put hardened criminals in there to fend for themselves. Heavily guard it with all the prison guards we now have and just let them either live amongst themselves and survive, living off the fruits of their labor, or kill each other out. Kind of like the movie Escape from New York City

[plutosgirl]

I didn't see it. I figured I would never have an original idea in my life though, so I'm not disappointed.:D

[WilliamJ]

Originally posted by sadic1
Good for him. Another murder doesn't fix the first ones. Eye for an eye is how Godless, uncivilized fucking Arabs live. Christians who believe in murder are fucking hypocrites. You can all yank bits and pieces out of your "Bibles" all you want to try to rationalize it, but then you should all have to do the injections yourself, then see if you feel like you murdered someone or not. 75% or more of all people in jail are there for nonviolent drug offenses. I think we can more than afford to keep violent criminals in jail if we got our priorities straight. I wouldn't mind reducing their quality of life while in prison, though. Capital punishment just enourages people to give in to their base desire and love for revenge. It's fucking weak, just like you guys. You are a dumbass, capitol punishment is no more murder than butchering cows. It is punishment not deterant. why even post about drug offenders.

[sadic1]

Originally posted by WilliamJ
You are a dumbass, capitol punishment is no more murder than butchering cows. It is punishment not deterant. why even post about drug offenders.
Fuck you, you ugly weakling. You don't even have an argument. People aren't cows, dick. If you believe in God, you should believe that murder is wrong. If you believe in murder, you're a piece of shit. It's not my responsibility to play God. It's my responsibility to keep my family safe, which is accomplished equally well by keeping dangerous people in prison for life. Just because you got a chip on your shoulder because you were the pussy who got his ass kicked in high school and want revenge against anyone you can now isn't my problem. Take it to the shrink.

Edit: maybe it's not because you got your ass kicked in high school. It may be because you're so fucking ugly and uninteresting that you can't gat laid.

[PantherPaul]

:stooges: :stfu: :smash: :chucks: :hammer: :beatup: :fight:

[SemperFi]

I have always felt if you murder someone you should give up your right to live. I fully support capital punishment.

[PantherPaul]

Originally posted by SemperFi
I fully support capital punishment.

Ditto

[PhotoGuy]

I am sooooo glad I am no longer an Illinois Resident! :mad: Those fuckers on death row need to suffer the fate of their victims! Capital punishment not only gets rid of the murdering scum sucking swine and keeps tax payers from forever paying for their food and housing, but it also deters outsiders from commiting such heinous crimes that could result in the loss of their own lives.

I have seen the Illinois state prison, my dad used to teach there at night. The inmates there have a better life in there than most of the lowest income and homeless people in the state. They have a roof over their heads, three hot meals every day, television, excercise, a library, and a good education..... but for what?!? Hell, if I were in the slums in Illinois and felt that I had no future, I would go kill just to get into the state prison now!

Geroge Ryan: :bird6: It's a damn good thing you are not running for re-election!

[magnus]

I do think that in extreme cases of murder there should be precedent to allow a person's peers to put him to death. If such is found, then that person should be executed, and expediently. Murder is wrong, but I'd like to see that said to a group of veterans. I'd doubt it'd go over well. If murder wasn't wrong, there'd be no reason to argue - and conversely if murder was totally wrong unabashedly and completely, without exception, this argument would be useless as well.
There is and always should be shades of gray in terms of a person's life. And that's what's so infuriating about what this dick did to death row inmates - threw out some statistics, threw out rulings regardless of reason or need, and cost that state a good deal not only in revenue but as well order.

[sadic1]

Originally posted by PhotoGuy
Capital punishment not only gets rid of the murdering scum sucking swine and keeps tax payers from forever paying for their food and housing, but it also deters outsiders from commiting such heinous crimes that could result in the loss of their own lives.
There is not much data to support these statements. While statistics about anything can be manipulated and are sometimes misleading, there isn't much out there to support either of these statements. Right now, it's more expensive to put someone to death than to house them in prison for life, and there is not evidence that it's a deterrent to murder. Even if there were, it's funny how willing people are to put economics and revenge before something as seemingly fundamental as the difference between right and wrong. Everyone wants to do the right thing and the good thing, unless and until it becomes painful to do so. It hurts to put aside your desire to hurt those who hurt others, but that makes it all the more important. We're a society that caters to the lowest denominator of strength and ethics, and the growing acceptance of the death penalty is a perfect example. People should set their goals a little higher. I agree that inmates shouldn't be afforded the luxuries they sometimes are in prison. That's a far cry from thinking it's OK to murder them.

[PantherPaul]

Originally posted by sadic1

Right now, it's more expensive to put someone to death than to house them in prison for life, I reload for less than $1.00 a 44 mag shell. I think that kills that arguement

[sadic1]

Originally posted by PantherPaul
I reload for less than $1.00 a 44 mag shell. I think that kills that arguement
While I do see the humor in this statement, considering that we know for a fact that we already occasionally kill people who are innocent with the death penalty, I'd be reluctant to reduce the right to trial of those accused of a capital murder. Regardless, economics should never take the place of basic right and wrong.

[Puttingood]

Murder is wrong, but I'd like to see that said to a group of veterans. posted by mags

I know of no Veterans that murdered any one. :( I do recall hearing of a few that were tried and convicted but they wouldn't be standing in a group of Veterans.

[PantherPaul]

It's a fact that it takes > 100k to keep a person on death row. the reason it cost so much is in part the endless appeals and additional facilities and guards. While I don't like the fact that innocent people get wrongly accused I would venture to guess that a percentage of 95% or better of the folks on death row did the crime. Can I live with perhaps killing 5% of innocent people if the other 95% of the truely scum of the earth die is a short period of time? Fewer innocent people would die because the scum bag population would be reduced. While there are no absolutes to either side of killing them or not, victims families and myslef would sleep well knowing that the murderers were dead instead of drawing a breath meant for the survivors

[SemperFi]

Originally posted by sadic1

Right now, it's more expensive to put someone to death than to house them in prison for life, and there is not evidence that it's a deterrent to murder.

The reason it costs more to execute someone than to keep them on death row is because of all the appeals they get at the taxpayers costs. I agree keeping someone on death row for 20 years is not much of a deterrent. If they would change it so that if there was indisputable evidence such as hidden videos for robberies/murders then execute their ass 2 weeks later that would be a deterrent.

[PantherPaul]

Personally I would like to see a deadline for appeals. Give a person 1 year to prove his innocense. If it can't be done pull the switch. Also it's fucking jail! Unplug their cable TV, no fucking education, 3 meals a day, 1 hour of exercise and call it a day. You shouldn't have more rights than youdid when you were out in the public

[SemperFi]

I don't have a problem offering some classes so the people who are not accused of capital crimes can make a contribution when they are released but I do think the cable TV should be unplugged and their asses should be out working on roadsides during the day. Take the classes at night. If you're convicted of a capital crime, you have not perks at all until you die.

[PhotoGuy]

Another case that proves how fucked up Illinois state law is was presented on ABC's Primetime

Kewanee IL resident Tabitha Pollock appeared before a grand jury investigating the death of her 3-year-old daughter, she thought she was testifying to help convict her boyfriend, who had confessed to hitting the child hard on the back of the head. Tabitha was asleep in her room when her daughter was killed.

Tabitha Pullock was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 36 years in prison. Her boyfriend, Scott English, was convicted in a separate trial and given life in prison, though his sentence was later reduced.

"In Illinois, the law is that a parent has a legal duty to protect their small children from harm," Terry Patton, the current Henry County prosecutor, explained to Primetime. Pullock did not protect her daughter from her killer boyfriend.

All of her appeals were denied and she lost custody of her remaining 3 children.

After 7 years behind bars, she finally got a new trial after writing a letter to the Center on Wrongful Convictions at the Northwestern University School of Law, which has attracted national attention for helping exonerate innocent prisoners, including nine men who were on death row.

She won and was released last month.

Conviction Overturned - Illinois Woman Exonerated in Daughter’s Death (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/DailyNews/convicted_mom_030109.html)

[sadic1]

Originally posted by SemperFi
I have always felt if you murder someone you should give up your right to live. I fully support capital punishment.
So you're saying that murder is not always wrong, correct? Few people want to admit that they think it's OK to murder people. While the relationship between war and murder is a bit more vague and can be argued effectively on both sides, the death penalty is pretty much the definition of murder. You're not allowed to execute a POW. With capital punishemnt, you plan to kill a particular person, and you kill them. That's first degree murder.

Originally posted by SemperFi
If they would change it so that if there was indisputable evidence such as hidden videos for robberies/murders then execute their ass 2 weeks later that would be a deterrent.
This is also not true. People who kill people don't expect to get caught, and many of them would just as soon die as spend their life in jail.

The idea that someone is OK with the idea that a few innocent people get executed as long as we get to kill the murderers that could otherwise be kept out of trouble in prison for life is sickening. Imagine what it's like to have not committed murder, but to get strapped down to the gurney.

All this argument and debate for what? Not a safer country, but the "satisfaction" of killing someone. People make me sad sometimes.

[SemperFi]

Sadic we just disagree. I believe capital punishment is just that, punishment, punishment for another murder or in some cases several murders. You can't tell me that a person who rapes and murders a 6 year old deserves to live. Do you think you would feel differently if it was your wife, child, parent etc that was brutally murdered and maybe raped?

I won't even get into with you about POWs and war.

[sadic1]

Originally posted by SemperFi
Sadic we just disagree. I believe capital punishment is just that, punishment, punishment for another murder or in some cases several murders. You can't tell me that a person who rapes and murders a 6 year old deserves to live. Do you think you would feel differently if it was your wife, child, parent etc that was brutally murdered and maybe raped?

I won't even get into with you about POWs and war.

I understand that we disagree, and don't take it personally. I just don't think one's principles should change based on how hard it is to maintain them. If murder is wrong, then murder is wrong. It's easy to feel that murder is wrong when you're talking about a little kid getting murdered. It's hard to feel that murder is wrong if you're talking about a piece of human fecal matter getting murdered. But they're both murder, and if you believe in a Christian God, you should believe that He's the only one who should make the life vs death decision. It's not up to us to determine who DESERVES to live. Where do you draw the line on THAT? Why would you even want to bear the responsibility of that decision, when you could accomplish the exact same level of public safety without being a murderer? People feel that they're not directly responsible for the murder that is capital punishment, because they don't carry it out themselves. They happily lay the responsibility on the government. Citizens who support the death penalty should be made to execute it, and I know there'd be a lot of people from this board lining up to do it, but I'd like to know how proud they feel afterward. That's where you'll separate the garbage from the good ones.

[SemperFi]

Well we won't change each others opinions, I respect yours, disagree with them but respect them.

[sadic1]

Originally posted by SemperFi
Well we won't change each others opinions, I respect yours, disagree with them but respect them.
Fair enough, but I'd encourage you to look inside yourself and ask yourself what it is about you that would rather kill someone than to simply insure that they don't kill again. If you'd like to recommend and particular point of introspection to me, I'll honor it as well.

[kshead]

Welcome back Sadic. :) Where have you been?

[sadic1]

Originally posted by kshead
Welcome back Sadic. :) Where have you been?
Thanks, man. Just busy, mostly. It took something I feel strongly about to make me post.

[SemperFi]

Originally posted by sadic1

Fair enough, but I'd encourage you to look inside yourself and ask yourself what it is about you that would rather kill someone than to simply insure that they don't kill again. If you'd like to recommend and particular point of introspection to me, I'll honor it as well.

It's just my belief, if you murder (again I don't believe capital punishement is murder) someone then you give up your right to life. And by the way, capital punishment does ensure that person will never kill again, even in prison. People sentenced to life in prison can still kill other inmates. Dead ones can't.

[sadic1]

Originally posted by SemperFi


It's just my belief, if you murder (again I don't believe capital punishement is murder) someone then you give up your right to life. And by the way, capital punishment does ensure that person will never kill again, even in prison. People sentenced to life in prison can still kill other inmates. Dead ones can't.
Can you tell me your definition of murder?

Specific implementation of prisons (ie "Supermax") can insure that murderers don't murder again.

[jbghostrat]

Originally posted by sadic1

Can you tell me your definition of murder?

Specific implementation of prisons (ie "Supermax") can insure that murderers don't murder again.

You're a fucking idiot!

[sadic1]

Originally posted by jbghostrat


You're a fucking idiot!
I'll let that go, because I know this is an emotional issue for you, but that's really overly hostile, considering this has been a pretty civil discussion so far. You've got some growing up to do yet and should try not to show your ass that way. If you're able to make a reasonable statement regarding the death penalty, I'll be happy to discuss it.

[magnus]

Originally posted by Puttingood
Murder is wrong, but I'd like to see that said to a group of veterans. posted by mags

I know of no Veterans that murdered any one. :( I do recall hearing of a few that were tried and convicted but they wouldn't be standing in a group of Veterans.

and that's my point. Someone dying because of your actions, that's not necessarily murder. Not all intentional death is inexplicably wrong. In war, you kill or be killed. In law, you determine punishment for crime. These are not murder. There's a damn load of difference between sentencing a mass murderer and being one, and sadic's POV doesn't seem to discriminate between the two.

[jbghostrat]

You're still a fucking idiot!!!

[sadic1]

Originally posted by jbghostrat
You're still a fucking idiot!!!
Why are you being so nasty?

[SemperFi]

Originally posted by sadic1

Can you tell me your definition of murder?

Specific implementation of prisons (ie "Supermax") can insure that murderers don't murder again.

Murder to me is when you unlawfully take someone's life which is why I don't believe capital punishment is murder. My turn, if someone is trying to kill you and you kill them in self defense, by your definition, wouldn't that still be murder?



EDIT: Also why in the hell should I have to pay to keep a murderer in an institution for the rest of his life.

[sadic1]

Originally posted by SemperFi


Murder to me is when you unlawfully take someone's life which is why I don't believe capital punishment is murder. My turn, if someone is trying to kill you and you kill them in self defense, by your definition, wouldn't that still be murder?



EDIT: Also why in the hell should I have to pay to keep a murderer in an institution for the rest of his life.

So, you would be willing to change your personal definition of murder if the law changed or if you moved to a different country? Theoretically, the law regarding taking of life could change dramatically. If that's the case, then I'd say that you put man's law above God's law. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, as long as that's a conscious decision.

I struggle with the idea of self defense. I'm inclined to think that it's probably better to be murdered than to kill in self defense. There are worse things than death in my version of the world. That said, I don't think I'm spiritually advanced enough yet to avoid trying to defend myself, but I'd rather aspire to that than to settle for less willingly. Christ didn't fight back. But this is still a confusing issue for me, though. However, taking someone from a cage in shackles, strapping them down to a board or a char and killing them is a lot less ambiguous than fighting off a gun aimed at you and turning it on an attacker.

As a Democratic Republic, we pay for a lot of things that don't seem fair, but are necessary. We pay to jail people and we pay to kill them. I'm all for giving them a concrete bed and the barest essential food and making them perform public service. Jail shouldn't be pleasant.

[jbghostrat]

Originally posted by sadic1

Why are you being so nasty?

because i don't like the way you talk! i don't like how you try to get your point across! You've taken the victim out and just threw them away like their life didn't mean anything but you are sticking up for the fuckwads who killed them. Why do you feel so sorry for them and nothing for the people they killed? why?

Whose going to pardon the victims families from their life sentence?!! Who?!

Are they going to give the families their money back that they had to spend to get these death penalty's?

how about all the years they had to spend in court?

To me it's not about if the death penalty is right or not, it's about what this guy is saying to all those families that had someone murdered by the pukes he pardoned! as if the victim never did matter and the crime they committed didn't mean shit, he just did this for his own causes and fuck everyone else!

I really don't give a fuck one way or the other on death penalty! It won't bring the victim back! Nothing does! The TRUE victim NEVER gets Justice!

[SemperFi]

Originally posted by sadic1


So, you would be willing to change your personal definition of murder if the law changed or if you moved to a different country? Theoretically, the law regarding taking of life could change dramatically.

Well I doubt that would ever happen, most countries are pretty clear on their definitions of murder. I am comfortable with my belief they should die if they murder someone. I am one of the people you hate to hear from, eye for and eye type thing. I guess it's too bad they didn't put a definition of murder in the bible huh?


Originally posted by sadic1


I struggle with the idea of self defense. I'm inclined to think that it's probably better to be murdered than to kill in self defense. There are worse things than death in my version of the world. That said, I don't think I'm spiritually advanced enough yet to avoid trying to defend myself, but I'd rather aspire to that than to settle for less willingly.

Not many people are. What about killing someone that is not threatening your life but is killing your wife or kids? With gun in hand could you watch?

Originally posted by sadic1

As a Democratic Republic, we pay for a lot of things that don't seem fair, but are necessary. We pay to jail people and we pay to kill them. I'm all for giving them a concrete bed and the barest essential food and making them perform public service. Jail shouldn't be pleasant.

We have different opinions, I don't believe it should be necessary to pay to house persons who commit capital crimes. Give them the same consideration they gave the people they murdered.

[slydevl]

Originally posted by sadic1

With capital punishemnt, you plan to kill a particular person, and you kill them. That's first degree murder.


Only one of the many many things you are wrong about.

When a person commits murder they are playing russian roulette. If caught and convicted they have committed suicide. They know the consequences of their actions. Everyone does.

Capital punishment is not first degree murder. Only a stupid fucking moron like you would say so. Murder is defined by law. Capital punishment is not defined as murder therefore it is not.

[jbghostrat]

Originally posted by sadic1

Fuck you, you ugly weakling. You don't even have an argument. People aren't cows, dick. If you believe in God, you should believe that murder is wrong. If you believe in murder, you're a piece of shit. It's not my responsibility to play God. It's my responsibility to keep my family safe, which is accomplished equally well by keeping dangerous people in prison for life. Just because you got a chip on your shoulder because you were the pussy who got his ass kicked in high school and want revenge against anyone you can now isn't my problem. Take it to the shrink.

Edit: maybe it's not because you got your ass kicked in high school. It may be because you're so fucking ugly and uninteresting that you can't gat laid.


Hey! was this Civil?! was this mature?!

[SemperFi]

Point taken, he has been civil to me and to you though.

[plutosgirl]

I'm curious. Since this turned into a capital punishment conversation... do any of you know anyone on death row or anyone who was murdered or both? I knew a guy who was murdered by a much more fortunate fellow than he. This little guy worked his ass off, bothered no one and the other guy's upbringing was much more comfortable growing up at the country club. He killed him for his money in his pocket to buy crack, I knew them both. It's been about 7-8 years ago but I still haven't decided how I feel about it. The murderer was sentenced to death, but he's still on death row as far as I know.

[sadic1]

Originally posted by jbghostrat



Hey! was this Civil?! was this mature?!

"You are a dumbass, capitol punishment is no more murder than butchering cows. It is punishment not deterant. why even post about drug offenders." - WilliamJ

The above was what I was DIRECTLY responding to in the post you quoted, jb. I would have been perfectly content to stick to the subject, but WilliamJ called me a dumbass completely unprovoked, so I was hostile in kind.

[sadic1]

Originally posted by jbghostrat


because i don't like the way you talk! i don't like how you try to get your point across! You've taken the victim out and just threw them away like their life didn't mean anything but you are sticking up for the fuckwads who killed them. Why do you feel so sorry for them and nothing for the people they killed? why?

Whose going to pardon the victims families from their life sentence?!! Who?!

Are they going to give the families their money back that they had to spend to get these death penalty's?

how about all the years they had to spend in court?

To me it's not about if the death penalty is right or not, it's about what this guy is saying to all those families that had someone murdered by the pukes he pardoned! as if the victim never did matter and the crime they committed didn't mean shit, he just did this for his own causes and fuck everyone else!

I really don't give a fuck one way or the other on death penalty! It won't bring the victim back! Nothing does! The TRUE victim NEVER gets Justice!

First of all, the murderers have not been pardoned. Their sentence has been commuted from death to life in prison without parole. I haven't done anything to the victims or their families. You said yourself that the death penalty doesn't bring back the victim. I'm not "sticking up" for murderers. Personally, I think life in prison is a lot less comfortable than going to sleep forever, but that doesn't even matter. I have no feelings for the murderers. I'm just advocating not murdering yet again, not because I think the murderers are good, but because killing people is wrong. If getting the death penalty cost the victims' families money, I'd fully support them recouping that money at the government's expense. You're right that the true victim never gets justice, either through the death penalty or life in prison for the offender. There's nothing in my post that indicates that I feel nothing for the victims or their families. Just the opposite. In your case, the murderers have taken your father from you, and nothing can change that. Don't let them take your soul from you. That's when they've really won. If you're a Christian, just ask yourself what He would do if given the choice between killing a murderer or not. I'm not saying that I'd be able to keep the knowledge of what's right in my heart in your situation, but I know that that would be the right thing to do, and I think that we should all aspire to doing the right thing, especially when it's most difficult. You can go on kicking and screaming now.

[sadic1]

Originally posted by slydevl


Only one of the many many things you are wrong about.

When a person commits murder they are playing russian roulette. If caught and convicted they have committed suicide. They know the consequences of their actions. Everyone does.

Capital punishment is not first degree murder. Only a stupid fucking moron like you would say so. Murder is defined by law. Capital punishment is not defined as murder therefore it is not.

You have a remarkable grasp of the obvious. Since capital punishment is legal in most states, it is not defined by the law as first degree murder. I don't define murder by the government's law. I'm no lawyer, but I believe that at least one definition of "first degree murder" involves premeditation. Capital punishment is about as premeditated as it gets. The law simply calls one legal and the other illegal based on the legal status of the victim.

Also, as ridiculous as it is to address this or any of your "points", by your own retarded logic, Capital murder cannot be argued as suicide, since suicide is illegal and nobody accused of capital murder has ever been brought up on charges of suicide or attempted suicide.

[slydevl]

Sadic, you claim that if one believes in God then one should not believe in murder or capital punishment. Can you expound on this a little?

There are too many verses to count where God says one must be killed for performing a certain action. If your argument was Jesus maybe I could understand it but I don't know that he ever spoke against capital punishment either. I do know that he said to obey the laws of your land.

[builder]

Originally posted by slydevl

There are too many verses to count where God says one must be killed for performing a certain action.

Sly...I'm not arguing against you here, but this is a contradiction to the 10 commandments, no? Can you explain too?

[slydevl]

Indeed, "kill" in English is an all-encompassing verb that covers the taking of life in all forms and for all classes of victims. That kind of generalization is expressed in Hebrew through the verb "harag." However, the verb that appears in the Torah's prohibition is a completely different one, " ratsah" which, it would seem, should be rendered "murder." This root refers only to criminal acts of killing.

Eliezer Segal

[builder]

So punishment is okay in God's eyes, but not murder? What about crimes of passion and mental incapacity?

[slydevl]

Originally posted by builder
What about crimes of passion and mental incapacity?

As far as I know, those are two categories defined by man and not by God. If one kills with criminal intent it is murder. All I know is that in most cases crimes of passion and mental incapacity are not deemed murder in our society. Probably manslaughter.

[sadic1]

Originally posted by slydevl
Sadic, you claim that if one believes in God then one should not believe in murder or capital punishment. Can you expound on this a little?

There are too many verses to count where God says one must be killed for performing a certain action. If your argument was Jesus maybe I could understand it but I don't know that he ever spoke against capital punishment either. I do know that he said to obey the laws of your land.

As I said in my first post in the thread, one can construct a reasonable argument for capital punishment by using parts of the bible, mostly using the Old Testament, and there are countless other atrocities that are considered completely unacceptable under our laws that could be similarly justified using the Bible. My intent is not to dissect the letter of the Bible or God's word therein. As a Christian, the only thing I'm completely confident in as good and perfect is Christ. As far as I'm concerned, the rest of the Bible is much less important and far overemphasized and overscrutinized by nitpicking religious bullshitters attempting to promote a reason to therr parishioners why their particular brand of Christianity deserves their financial contributions.

I feel confident in my own heart that Christ would rather be killed than to kill someone else under any circumstances, and his fate bears this out. Christ ministered to the most negative elements of society not by condemning them, but by standing up as good in their presence and in the face of their evil as a living example of what they themselves could choose to be. The lust to kill someone who has killed is to be influenced by and reciprocate that person's negativity. The strength to reject that lust is the strongest statement and example to others possible. This is an extremely lofty goal for all of us, I know, but definitely the right choice.

There's a great irony in the death penalty. A lot of people "find God" once they've been condemned to death. Many of them are certainly insincere or simply terrified of death, but there are almost certainly some who truly reject the negativity in their hearts that allowed them to create such tragedy. In my view of the world, they're spiritually better off than all of you who seek to justify murder, hiding behind the law. Those few have changed their hearts, while you seek to protect your "legal" right to hate.

[slydevl]

I have never met a murderer and can't rightly say that I hate any of them. I don't have a problem with them being killed but not out of hate.

[D'lo]

Here are i believe 76 of Ryan's new friends. this is their profile, check it out.

who i killed and how (http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/flash/2003-01/6205191.pdf)

[jbghostrat]

stupid web tv!! i can't see the profiles! :mad:

[SilverSurfer]

Wow.

I just read through this and seems sadic doesn't like capital punishment.

While I feel for the victims of the crimes, I sort of agree just by seeing movies like The Green Mile, Dead Man Walking, stuff like that, and knowing that seeing this stuff is probably mild compared to some of the drama and intensity of emotion that happens on death row. I really don't see how people have the stomach for the kind of work that death row prison guards, wardens, or anybody remotely related to the death row experience have. Usually the stories you hear of the family members who were finally "vindicated" by having the murderer of their son, daughter, whatever killed don't feel any better, and sometimes feel worse.

While murdering murderers may be justified in some peoples eyes, it's hard for me to agree with it. If I was a family member of a victim, I may be able to say go ahead and pull the plug on somebody, but if I had to spend a lot of time around them and was not associated with the crime, I don't think I could say to kill them, no matter what they did, especially if I felt they were truly repentant. It's just too personal, when it's not personal, if that makes sense.

[jbghostrat]

Has anyone read any of the profiles of these murderers?

one of them fucked a 15 MONTH not years but months, and then killed her.


and its not murder to execute a murderer.

Greenmile? it's a movie. You felt bad when the big black guy died but that was because he didn't do it, but how did you feel when he got that guy who killed those two little girls? Anyway, that's just a movie.

[SilverSurfer]

You can say that jb because you're personally involved. To me, murder is murder whether it's legal or not. If you're defending yourself or fighting for your country, that's different, at least to me. But that's only my opinion, you and lots of others feel differently, and that's OK. I don't have a problem with people who DON'T have a problem with capital punishment, I'm just not all for it.

Yeah the stuff I was talking about was just a movie, but that's what I'm saying, it's probably even worse in real life.

[jbghostrat]

I'm not personally involved with any of the Illinoise deathrow inmates, but i can read what they done and it angers me and would like to keep them pukes from doing it again. You don't know, the silversurfer family could be next.

and before anyone says that they are lwop, some were set free and some might have their sentences shortened.

[SilverSurfer]

Originally posted by jbghostrat
I'm not personally involved with any of the Illinoise deathrow inmates, but i can read what they done and it angers me and would like to keep them pukes from doing it again. You don't know, the silversurfer family could be next.

and before anyone says that they are lwop, some were set free and some might have their sentences shortened.

jb, I didn't even read the article, I was just telling you my feelings on the death penalty in general. Believe me, I understand how you feel and how others feel, and what I'm saying is, I have mixed feelings about it. To me, it's a hard decision either way.

[SemperFi]

Originally posted by SilverSurfer

Yeah the stuff I was talking about was just a movie, but that's what I'm saying, it's probably even worse in real life.

Agreed, actors probably can't begin to betray the pain and fear a person really feels as they are being raped and then repeatly stabbed until they die. Or the fear a person feels working at a convenient store just before the robber pulls the trigger to blow his brains out.

[SilverSurfer]

Originally posted by SemperFi


Agreed, actors probably can't begin to betray the pain and fear a person really feels as they are being raped and then repeatly stabbed until they die. Or the fear a person feels working at a convenient store just before the robber pulls the trigger to blow his brains out.

I totally agree.

[jbghostrat]

just for my sake, please read their profiles, read what they did.

can't you just take a few minutes to look, please.

[SilverSurfer]

Originally posted by jbghostrat
just for my sake, please read their profiles, read what they did.

can't you just take a few minutes to look, please.

I went back and looked. They all look like a bunch of scum to me, and I'm not saying they don't deserve death. I just don't think I could be the one to deal it out to them, or anybody else. Somebody else would have to do it. I'm not condoning what any of them did.

And honestly, if I had my choice between prison for life, or death, and had to make an instant decision, I'd opt for death. To me life in prison would be worse than death.

[jbghostrat]

Manson would disagree with you, lwop is what he wanted and got.

[Boo]

This is a staggering and repulsive abuse of power. It's nothing less than a "screw-you" to the people of Illinois who obviously want a death penalty (that's why it is a law in the state), the police officers who've risked their lives enforcing the law, and most of all, it's a slap at the victim's familes.

You know, now that Ryan has actually given these death row monsters a break, I'd like to see he has to say to the victim's families today. Ryan should have to look in the face of a small girl and explain why he gave a break to the guy that killed her daddy. Let him explain his decision to a mother who had her child raped and murdered by one of these animals. Her kid is dead while these wastes of plasma who took their lives are going to live on for decades.

All of this is because Ryan is worried that they might execute an innocent person. Well, there might be innocent people sitting in Illinois jails serving decades of hard time. In fact, I'm sure there are innocent people in prison in Illinois because there is no such thing as a flawless system. So why doesn't Ryan give pardons to every criminal in Illinois? That makes about as much as sense as leniency to all these pieces of garbage who were on death row.

[sadic1]

Originally posted by Boo
All of this is because Ryan is worried that they might execute an innocent person.
So if you don't mind killing innocent people, you should be fine with all of this.

[Boo]

Originally posted by sadic1

So if you don't mind killing innocent people, you should be fine with all of this.

shit, let em all lose, there might be innocent people in prison right now...better let em all out to make sure.

[Boo]

Better yet, why not scrap the judicial system. Judges and juries obviously can't get anything correct...might as well let the governor decide all criminal trials.

[gridfaniker]

I can understand not wanting to execute an innocent person, but to wave a magic wand and commute each sentence in a blanket manner is ludicrous. If Ryan wanted to do the right thing, he should have reviewed each case individually. I can imagine the victims' family deserved to have been approached and told, "Look, we know there are some people on deasth row who were unfairly convicted and are actually innocent. We want to review the case of you daughter's killer just to be sure he is guilty. I know this will be difficult for you, but we want to be absoluterly sure before we execute anyone." Instead, they get to see this lame-duck jackass in front of TV cameras saying no review is needed: they're all off the hook." That's what is so wrong about this whole thing.

It's plain to see Ryan chose the mass commutation route because he was on his way out of office. His successor, a Democrat (I mention his party affiliation only because one would assume a Dem would be more likely to commute all death sentences than a Repub like Ryan) disagreed with what Ryan did.

[sadic1]

I think if someone is going to have a problem with anything, it should be that the Governor is legally allowed to do this (though I understand there will be some legal wrangling before this issue is put to rest). You can't fault a guy for doing something that is within his rights at a time when he knows he doesn't have to worry about the political ramifications of exercising his conscience. Well, you can, but you shouldn't.

[gridfaniker]

Originally posted by sadic1
You can't fault a guy for doing something that is within his rights at a time when he knows he doesn't have to worry about the political ramifications of exercising his conscience. Well, you can, but you shouldn't.

It's called criticism and he's not immune to it simply because it's within his rights to do it.

It's within George Bush's rights to offer up a plan to cut taxes. Does that mean we can't fault him for it?

[sadic1]

Good point. Now, this thing called "criticism" you speak of, can it be directed at anyone at any time indiscriminantly?

[gridfaniker]

Originally posted by sadic1
Good point. Now, this thing called "criticism" you speak of, can it be directed at anyone at any time indiscriminantly?

This is your right, as proscribed by our Constitution.

(Except for me. You are not allowed to criticize me.)

[hasbeen99]

WOW. Lots of interesting stuff in this thread. Might as well throw my $.02 in as well...

First of all, I do not agree politically with the governor's move here. He's an elected representative of the people, and was chosen because he earned the people's trust. He betrayed that trust, pure and simple. If he wants to launch a personal crusade against capital punishment, let it be in the state legislature. That being said, I can see how it's possible that his conscience could have been eating at him because he did in fact have the power to do something about his personal beliefs.

Regarding the Christian perspective of capital punishment, my opinion and interpretation is with Sadic's. Jesus changed many things in God's law, and I believe capital punishment is one of those things. For every 'eye for an eye' verse someone shows me, I can show them a verse that says, "'Vengeance is mine,' says the Lord. 'I will repay,'" as well as numerous verses calling Jesus our ultimate Judge.

As a Christian, I believe that NOTHING escapes the judgment of God. And because of that truth, NO ONE gets away with ANYTHING. Those who will face Christ's judgment will be held accountable for every action of their lives. Knowing the character of God as I do, I know that He has the ability to punish people as much as they truly deserve. And not only does He have the ability, He has the will and desire. He has promised to avenge those like JB and his family who have suffered terribly at the hands of others. And He has also promised healing and peace to any victims who will seek Him out. I have seen this for myself.

I do not condemn those who advocate capital punishment. For those who are not Christians, I understand their only hope for justice is at the hands of our government (or a vigilante). But for those of us who know how God's justice system works, our thirst for vengeance and/or justice should be placed in His hands, not ours.

That being my position, I personally believe the function of lwop is not actually punishment, but a means to keep the rest of the population safe from those who would do us harm. JMHO.

[gridfaniker]

Originally posted by hasbeen99
WOW. Lots of interesting stuff in this thread. Might as well throw my $.02 in as well...

First of all, I do not agree politically with the governor's move here. He's an elected representative of the people, and was chosen because he earned the people's trust. He betrayed that trust, pure and simple. If he wants to launch a personal crusade against capital punishment, let it be in the state legislature. That being said, I can see how it's possible that his conscience could have been eating at him because he did in fact have the power to do something about his personal beliefs.

Regarding the Christian perspective of capital punishment, my opinion and interpretation is with Sadic's. Jesus changed many things in God's law, and I believe capital punishment is one of those things. For every 'eye for an eye' verse someone shows me, I can show them a verse that says, "'Vengeance is mine,' says the Lord. 'I will repay,'" as well as numerous verses calling Jesus our ultimate Judge.

As a Christian, I believe that NOTHING escapes the judgment of God. And because of that truth, NO ONE gets away with ANYTHING. Those who will face Christ's judgment will be held accountable for every action of their lives. Knowing the character of God as I do, I know that He has the ability to punish people as much as they truly deserve. And not only does He have the ability, He has the will and desire. He has promised to avenge those like JB and his family who have suffered terribly at the hands of others. And He has also promised healing and peace to any victims who will seek Him out. I have seen this for myself.

I do not condemn those who advocate capital punishment. For those who are not Christians, I understand their only hope for justice is at the hands of our government (or a vigilante). But for those of us who know how God's justice system works, our thirst for vengeance and/or justice should be placed in His hands, not ours.

That being my position, I personally believe the function of lwop is not actually punishment, but a means to keep the rest of the population safe from those who would do us harm. JMHO.

You makes some good points hasbeen. But tell me, why the implication that capital punishment is an issue bornbe out of one's religious beliefs? I'm sure there are atheists out there who support capital punishment, just as there are Christians out there who oppose it. That's the knee-jerk reaction we see from certain posters here: that if someone is opposed to abortion, or supports capital punishment, they must be "fundamentalist Christians." Go read sadic's first post on this thread and you'll see what I mean.

[McFly41]

It isn't about the money, completely...and I don't beleive for one nanosecond that it cost more to kill the mother fuckers than to stuff nutrients down their throught three times a day, provide medical care when they are ill, provide "siutable" living quarters, etc...
It's strictly about punishment and protecting society. It's no deterent, bullshit, it deters the bastard from killing again...hell, it prevents it!

This isn't going to be a popular statement, but it's how I feel. A very high majority of those put to death are guilty. For those very few who are innocent, I consider them colateral damage.

And as for God, if God is such a powerful force...how would the death penalty even exist if he/she deemed it to be wrong?
The Bible contradicts itself. One passage says one thing, another says the opposite. It's a book, it's open to interperetation.

[jbghostrat]

It isn't about the money, completely...and I don't beleive for one nanosecond that it cost more to kill the mother fuckers than to stuff nutrients down their throught three times a day, provide medical care when they are ill, provide "siutable" living quarters, etc...


you're right, it doesn't cost more to kill them. That's just a myth that anti-death penalty opponents has put out there. If you do the math, which the JFA has, and it showed that Lwop cost in the end about 1-3 million dollars more then the death penalty. death penalty cost more in the beginning with all the appeals and that crap but after 6 -10 yrs. poof' they dead~ hehe. but lwop is like 50 years. i'm just remembering this from a paper written on death penalty on the site i go to for murdervictims.

It's strictly about punishment and protecting society. It's no deterent, bullshit, it deters the bastard from killing again...hell, it prevents it!


Yeah, a dead murderer can't murder again. If they are placed in Lwop what is the deterent to keep them from killing again? there isn't anything, except taking away privaleges.

[Superfluous_Nut]

i'm for the death penalty, but i would like it used more selectively. i don't think the nature of the crime is the important aspect, but rather the nature of the evidence. Of course, the crime would have to be "bad" enough to warrant death...

The biggest problem with the death penalty, tho, is the system that feeds it. I counted 45 "apparent" blacks on that list. I think it was out of 76 people. That's like 60%. Illinois' population is like 15% black. Either blacks are 4 times as likely to commit such a heinous crime, or they are subjected to a disproportionately higher risk of being killed by the state. This gives me more pause than the "murder is wrong" argument.

[gridfaniker]

Originally posted by Superfluous_Nut
Either blacks are 4 times as likely to commit such a heinous crime.

I know this will come off as sounding racist (and that ain't my intent), but is that so hard to believe? I think the true measure of whether or not the death penalties laws are unfair toward the black population would be to determine how many murders are committed by which races. If blacks commit six in 10 murders in a particular state, it shouldn't be that alarming if they constitute 60 percent of all death row inmates in that state.

[Piper]

This isn't going to be a popular statement, but it's how I feel. A very high majority of those put to death are guilty. For those very few who are innocent, I consider them colateral damage.

I actually had a blow up argument over this with my wife. I'm sorry, that's just not acceptable to me. Because it could be me, for one, and I'd rather me or a loved one be killed by a murderer let go than to be killed for something I or my loved one didn't do.

I don't have a problem with the death penalty, just the lowering of criteria. One, eyewitness testimony alone should never qualify. I consider eyewitness testimony pretty much next to worthless anyway. Forensic evidence I beleive and carries much more value. Too bad it's often the other way around with juries.

A lot of the innocent people who were later let go were put behind bars because of witness testimony or leaps of faith in forensic evidence. Also, a lot of guilty people are found innocent I believe because people don't understand evidence. That's why prosecutors and defense attorneys don't like people with a scientific background on juries.

And grid, I don't think that's what the statistics mean. It not the sheer number of whites vs blacks committing crime, its the percentage. A greater percentage of blacks get the death penalty as oppossed to the percentage of whites found guilty, I believe.

[vpkozel]

Nut, to add to Grid's posts, many of the murders committed by poor people are committed as part of an underlying crime. On the link that was posted on page 4 of this discussion, I counted the obvious black defendents and the reason that they were on death row. 35 of the 45 murders by blacks were committed as part of a robbery, rape, or was drug related. Those types of cases more easily lend themselves to the death penalty. 1 was the case where the lady and her fiance killed a lady and ripped the fetus from her and killed that too. Sorry, that deserves death. Only a few of them were what I would consider crimes of passion, but I don't know the particulars of those cases, so I can't defend the death penalty. In the end, the whole race is the determining factor in death penalty cases is a red herring. The real determing factor is generally income level, and in America, the majority of poor people are black. I don't want this to sound racist, because I do not mean it that way. If anyone takes it that way, please let me know and I'll try to clarify.

[Piper]

Originally posted by vpkozel
The real determing factor is generally income level, and in America, the majority of poor people are black. I don't want this to sound racist, because I do not mean it that way. If anyone takes it that way, please let me know and I'll try to clarify.

The majority of poor people are not black. A higher percentage of the black population is poor, yes, but in sheer numbers, their are more white people below the poverty line.

[sadic1]

Originally posted by gridfaniker


You makes some good points hasbeen. But tell me, why the implication that capital punishment is an issue bornbe out of one's religious beliefs? I'm sure there are atheists out there who support capital punishment, just as there are Christians out there who oppose it. That's the knee-jerk reaction we see from certain posters here: that if someone is opposed to abortion, or supports capital punishment, they must be "fundamentalist Christians." Go read sadic's first post on this thread and you'll see what I mean.

I believe you're wrong about me here, grid. Below I have pasted my post that you referred to. In it, I stated that any Christian who supports the murder that is the death penaly is a hypocrite. I made no distinction about "fundamentalists". While I've used that term in the past in unrelated threads, I believe that ANY Christian who believes it's OK to murder anyone, good or evil, is supporting the ultimate affront to Christ's teachings.
I also didn't say or imply that the death penalty was a religious issue by design. Since most people on the board are Christians, and most people consider their religious beliefs when evaluating issues in government, I chose to address Christians specifically. I in no way stated or implied that to support the death penalty, you had to be a "fundamentalist Christian". To support the death penalty, you must have an underlying murderous desire in your heart, which can be inate in people or brought on by grief or any number of social dynamics or personality disorders involving the fear of powerlessness. I guarantee that some people who support the death penalty would not continue to do so if they themselves had to administer it.

My first post, for your reference:
"Good for him. Another murder doesn't fix the first ones. Eye for an eye is how Godless, uncivilized fucking Arabs live. Christians who believe in murder are fucking hypocrites. You can all yank bits and pieces out of your "Bibles" all you want to try to rationalize it, but then you should all have to do the injections yourself, then see if you feel like you murdered someone or not. 75% or more of all people in jail are there for nonviolent drug offenses. I think we can more than afford to keep violent criminals in jail if we got our priorities straight. I wouldn't mind reducing their quality of life while in prison, though. Capital punishment just enourages people to give in to their base desire and love for revenge. It's fucking weak, just like you guys."

[vpkozel]

Originally posted by Piper


The majority of poor people are not black. A higher percentage of the black population is poor, yes, but in sheer numbers, their are more white people below the poverty line.

Ok, that was a better to say what I was trying to get across. Thanks.

[vpkozel]

Originally posted by sadic1


I believe you're wrong about me here, grid. Below I have pasted my post that you referred to. In it, I stated that any Christian who supports the murder that is the death penaly is a hypocrite. I made no distinction about "fundamentalists". While I've used that term in the past in unrelated threads, I believe that ANY Christian who believes it's OK to murder anyone, good or evil, is supporting the ultimate affront to Christ's teachings.
I also didn't say or imply that the death penalty was a religious issue by design. Since most people on the board are Christians, and most people consider their religious beliefs when evaluating issues in government, I chose to address Christians specifically. I in no way stated or implied that to support the death penalty, you had to be a "fundamentalist Christian". To support the death penalty, you must have an underlying murderous desire in your heart, which can be inate in people or brought on by grief or any number of social dynamics or personality disorders involving the fear of powerlessness. I guarantee that some people who support the death penalty would not continue to do so if they themselves had to administer it.

My first post, for your reference:
"Good for him. Another murder doesn't fix the first ones. Eye for an eye is how Godless, uncivilized fucking Arabs live. Christians who believe in murder are fucking hypocrites. You can all yank bits and pieces out of your "Bibles" all you want to try to rationalize it, but then you should all have to do the injections yourself, then see if you feel like you murdered someone or not. 75% or more of all people in jail are there for nonviolent drug offenses. I think we can more than afford to keep violent criminals in jail if we got our priorities straight. I wouldn't mind reducing their quality of life while in prison, though. Capital punishment just enourages people to give in to their base desire and love for revenge. It's fucking weak, just like you guys."

I would totally se your logic if you talk about all killing as murder, but you do not. You waver on the isue of killing during war, and please let me know what your decision would be on the following scenario. A man breaks into my house with a weapon and takes my child hostage, wakes me up and says that he plans to rape and kill the child. I have a weapon and can stop the situation ONLY (and since this is my example you don't get to come up with another solution) by killing that person. In your logic, my decision as a Christian would be to let him do as he pleases and let God judge him. To do otherwise I would have a "murderous heart." I do not buy thatand that man would be dead.

[gridfaniker]

If I have a problem with anything sadic wrote, it's in the following statement:

"Christians who believe in murder are fucking hypocrites."

I believe that the Bible teachings are open to interpretation. Much of that is done by preachers/ministers from denomination to denomination. For example, a Baptist minister and Methodist minister and Presbyterian minister could very well all interpret the same piece of scripture in a different manner. The congregations, then, also walk out of Sunday service with differing views. It makes sense, then, that Christians as a whole could have very differing opinions on the death penalty and how it jibes of doesn't jobe with their personal believes. Thus, to generalize and call all Christians who believe in the death penalty "fucking hypocrites" is, in my opinion, wrong.

[sadic1]

Originally posted by vpkozel


I would totally se your logic if you talk about all killing as murder, but you do not. You waver on the isue of killing during war, and please let me know what your decision would be on the following scenario. A man breaks into my house with a weapon and takes my child hostage, wakes me up and says that he plans to rape and kill the child. I have a weapon and can stop the situation ONLY (and since this is my example you don't get to come up with another solution) by killing that person. In your logic, my decision as a Christian would be to let him do as he pleases and let God judge him. To do otherwise I would have a "murderous heart." I do not buy thatand that man would be dead.
I sort of addressed this in an earlier post. I feel that this type of question has little to do with capital punishment in that the intent of capital punishment is to murder someone, and there's plenty of time to think about what's going to happen. To me, this is EXACTLY the same thing as a hired killer murdering someone for vengeance.
In the scenario you've given, the first and only thing in my heart would be to protect my loved ones. My first and only intent should be to do what was necessary to protect them and no more. If the result of that was that the invader was killed, I would trust that God would judge my heart and know that I didn't want to kill that person and my only intent was to do what was necessary to prevent harm from coming to my family. If someone was attacking my family and I had the choice between killing them and wishing them away, I would wish them away. If someone was attacking my family and I disarmed them and wounded them to the point of incapacitation, and I then chose to put a bullet in their brain rather than wait for the cops, I would be a murderer, regardless of the damage done to my family prior. With capital punishment, we have the option to protect our society without killing. Ergo, to choose to kill anyway is murder.
Bear in mind that I don't know that I'd be able to make all the right choices in the attack scenario described above, but if I did not, I would ask God's forgiveness.

[sadic1]

Originally posted by gridfaniker
If I have a problem with anything sadic wrote, it's in the following statement:

"Christians who believe in murder are fucking hypocrites."

I believe that the Bible teachings are open to interpretation. Much of that is done by preachers/ministers from denomination to denomination. For example, a Baptist minister and Methodist minister and Presbyterian minister could very well all interpret the same piece of scripture in a different manner. The congregations, then, also walk out of Sunday service with differing views. It makes sense, then, that Christians as a whole could have very differing opinions on the death penalty and how it jibes of doesn't jobe with their personal believes. Thus, to generalize and call all Christians who believe in the death penalty "fucking hypocrites" is, in my opinion, wrong.

I specifically said in a subsequent post that my perspective regarding Christians who support the death penalty being hypocrites is not a result of my interpretation of the Bible, but in my observation of Christ's example in the Bible and my belief that to be a good Christian is to be as much like Christ as we can manage, combined with a deep, true feeling in my heart (as opposed to a conscious thought) that to kill someone in cold blood is wrong. As I said, some people who are really Christians have that feeling buried too deeply below worldly things in their hearts, but they would find that feeling if they were made to administer the murder.

[gridfaniker]

Originally posted by sadic1


I specifically said in a subsequent post that my perspective regarding Christians who support the death penalty being hypocrites is not a result of my interpretation of the Bible, but in my observation of Christ's example in the Bible and my belief that to be a good Christian is to be as much like Christ as we can manage, combined with a deep, true feeling in my heart (as opposed to a conscious thought) that to kill someone in cold blood is wrong. As I said, some people who are really Christians have that feeling buried too deeply below worldly things in their hearts, but they would find that feeling if they were made to administer the murder.

And I respect your beliefs as a Christian just as I'm sure you respect other people's beliefs as Christians. Since Christians may vary in their beliefs relative to a certain matter (capital punishment, i.e.), one can't be fairly labled a hypocrite by another. If her or she truly believes in his or her heart that capital punishment is not wrong and does not run contrary to their faith, they are not being hypocritical.

[sadic1]

Originally posted by gridfaniker


And I respect your beliefs as a Christian just as I'm sure you respect other people's beliefs as Christians. Since Christians may vary in their beliefs relative to a certain matter (capital punishment, i.e.), one can't be fairly labled a hypocrite by another. If her or she truly believes in his or her heart that capital punishment is not wrong and does not run contrary to their faith, they are not being hypocritical.

It's simply my opinion and criticism. Personally, I don't respect the beliefs of Christians who think murdering a bad person is condoned by God. I find it sickening that these people seek to validate their self-indulgence by vandalizing the Bible when the surest and least controversial example in the Bible of what it is to be a Christian is presented in the life, views, and acts of Christ, who never would have considered the possibility of planning and implementing the execuion of another human being. I would find it much less distasteful for people to simply say, "Murderers make me so angry, I think we should kill them!" then to blasphemously lay off the responsibility for their faithlessness on God and the government.
To despise and refute these ideas is not to despise the people who hold them, nor is it to judge the content of their souls or ultimate fate. We're all a product of our choices on a daily basis. It literally hurts my heart to see how stubbornly people cling to these ideas, but I do believe that if they were less insulated from the horror of it's implementation, the truly good ones would offer their negativity up to God and ask Him to take it away.

[slydevl]

I didn't write any of this but i do happen to agree with it:

Christ and Capital Punishment

First, Christ never condemned capital punishment. In fact capital punishment was unjustly carried out against him. If capital punishment were looked upon with disdain by Christ, he had ample opportunity to speak out on the topic. In Luke 23:41 the repentant thief said he and the other offender had justly receiving the death sentence but Christ was guiltless. "And we indeed [justly]; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss." Christ could have said to the repentant thief, "It does not matter what you have done, capital punishment is wrong. It should be done away with." But, he did not say that when he had a golden opportunity to say it.

That brings us to the second incident that can shed some light of Jesus Christs' view of capital punishment. We find this in John 8:1-11. This passage deals with the Pharisee's sting operation relating to the adulterous woman. It was designed to trap Christ and make him reject the Law God had given to Moses or the Roman Law of the day. Christ did neither, but in fact invited those without sin to throw the first stone. John 8:7 says, "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." This is hardly a rejection of capital punishment. Christ did recognize a set-up when he saw one though.

Paul and Capital Punishment

Human government is ordained by God. If you have any doubt about that just look at Romans 13:1-7. But what powers does God sanction for government?

THE POWER TO TAX -- (6-7)
THE POWER TO ENFORCE LAWS -- (2-3)
THE POWER OF PUNISHMENT FOR EVIL (even capital punishment)
Note 1 Peter 2:13 before you look at Romans 13:4.

"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well."

Romans 13:4

"For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

The sword is a symbol of the Governments power to use capital punishment. Dr Charles Ryrie says "it may be said that Romans 13:4 does teach the right of the government to take the life of a criminal, although what cases is not specified."

If Romans 13:4 is not clear enough for you, there is another incident that involves the apostle Paul that should make it clearer yet. Turn to Acts 25:1-12. The key verse in this section is Acts 25:11,

"For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar."

What Paul is saying certainly is clear enough is it not? He says, "if I have committed a crime deserving of the death penalty then I will not fight it. But I have not and so I appeal to Caesar."

The prerogative of capital punishment is established in Genesis 9:6, developed in the Mosaic law and reaffirmed in the New Testament. Capital punishment IS Biblical. It is for today.

[gridfaniker]

Originally posted by sadic1


It's simply my opinion and criticism. Personally, I don't respect the beliefs of Christians who think murdering a bad person is condoned by God. I find it sickening that these people seek to validate their self-indulgence by vandalizing the Bible when the surest and least controversial example in the Bible of what it is to be a Christian is presented in the life, views, and acts of Christ, who never would have considered the possibility of planning and implementing the execuion of another human being. I would find it much less distasteful for people to simply say, "Murderers make me so angry, I think we should kill them!" then to blasphemously lay off the responsibility for their faithlessness on God and the government.

To despise and refute these ideas is not to despise the people who hold them, nor is it to judge the content of their souls or ultimate fate. We're all a product of our choices on a daily basis. It literally hurts my heart to see how stubbornly people cling to these ideas, but I do believe that if they were less insulated from the horror of it's implementation, the truly good ones would offer their negativity up to God and ask Him to take it away.

You also have to be careful not to assume that people's support or opposition to the death penalty is rooted in their faith as Christians. I'm sure there are lots of Christians who have certain beliefs that are in no way derived from their faith in God. In many instances, I'm sure, that's the case here.

[sadic1]

Originally posted by slydevl
I didn't write any of this but i do happen to agree with it:

Christ and Capital Punishment

First, Christ never condemned capital punishment. In fact capital punishment was unjustly carried out against him. If capital punishment were looked upon with disdain by Christ, he had ample opportunity to speak out on the topic. In Luke 23:41 the repentant thief said he and the other offender had justly receiving the death sentence but Christ was guiltless. "And we indeed [justly]; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss." Christ could have said to the repentant thief, "It does not matter what you have done, capital punishment is wrong. It should be done away with." But, he did not say that when he had a golden opportunity to say it.

That brings us to the second incident that can shed some light of Jesus Christs' view of capital punishment. We find this in John 8:1-11. This passage deals with the Pharisee's sting operation relating to the adulterous woman. It was designed to trap Christ and make him reject the Law God had given to Moses or the Roman Law of the day. Christ did neither, but in fact invited those without sin to throw the first stone. John 8:7 says, "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." This is hardly a rejection of capital punishment. Christ did recognize a set-up when he saw one though.

Paul and Capital Punishment

Human government is ordained by God. If you have any doubt about that just look at Romans 13:1-7. But what powers does God sanction for government?

THE POWER TO TAX -- (6-7)
THE POWER TO ENFORCE LAWS -- (2-3)
THE POWER OF PUNISHMENT FOR EVIL (even capital punishment)
Note 1 Peter 2:13 before you look at Romans 13:4.

"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well."

Romans 13:4

"For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

The sword is a symbol of the Governments power to use capital punishment. Dr Charles Ryrie says "it may be said that Romans 13:4 does teach the right of the government to take the life of a criminal, although what cases is not specified."

If Romans 13:4 is not clear enough for you, there is another incident that involves the apostle Paul that should make it clearer yet. Turn to Acts 25:1-12. The key verse in this section is Acts 25:11,

"For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar."

What Paul is saying certainly is clear enough is it not? He says, "if I have committed a crime deserving of the death penalty then I will not fight it. But I have not and so I appeal to Caesar."

The prerogative of capital punishment is established in Genesis 9:6, developed in the Mosaic law and reaffirmed in the New Testament. Capital punishment IS Biblical. It is for today.

This drivel is a classic example of the stubbornness some have to lay the responsibility of their deficiencies off on God and the Bible. The only reference germaine to my contentions involve Paul and Christ. Christ's choice to not fight his killers does not constitute approval of the death penalty. With his last breaths He asked God to forgive those who unjustly killed him, just as we should all strive to give people who the opportunity to live long enough to understand the their weakness and ask God's forgiveness. Paul simply stated that he would accept death if called to, and in that was doing his best to act like Christ. He did not say that he was a supporter of capital punishment. You think that Jesus saying that he who is without sin should cast the first stone is an approval of capital punishment, when it is repeatedly made clear in every phase of Christianity that no human is without sin? That's just sad.

Grid, it's pretty naive to think that to kill or not to kill is not a profoundly religious topic for those that prescribe to a religion. I realize you're doing whatever possible to play Devil's advocate, but let's be reasonable.

[hasbeen99]

Originally posted by gridfaniker
...why the implication that capital punishment is an issue bornbe out of one's religious beliefs? I'm sure there are atheists out there who support capital punishment, just as there are Christians out there who oppose it. That's the knee-jerk reaction we see from certain posters here: that if someone is opposed to abortion, or supports capital punishment, they must be "fundamentalist Christians."

I'm not saying that all people's views of capital punishment are founded through their faith. Nor would I say that their position on it is even indicative of their faith. I've found that the capital punishment issue is one that is generally highly emotional, and one's position is often (not always) based on personal history or other factors.

My own personal position is directly related to my faith, and is definitely not what I supported before I was a Christian. If I'm not mistaken, the arguments Sadic and I are making are based on how the idea of capital punishment compares to Christian doctrine. The only people we might be holding to that standard are Christians, who have already agreed to hold themselves to it.

[BudMan]

Originally posted by BearBryant


except it costs about about $25,000 a year to house inmate.

it costs nearly 2.1 million to execute one inmate. i know it seems obserd, but its actually cheaper to put someone in prison for life.

[vpkozel]

Well, now that you bring up the crucifixtion, I would think that you could argue that God letting his son be executed would count as at least a tacit approval for this as a form of punishment.

[slydevl]

Sadic the only thing we have to go on as Christians is the word of the lord.

Bottom line, Christ never said Capital Punishment was wrong. He did say "Obey the laws of your country" and specifically said that countries have the right to inflict punishment for crimes.

I think you thinking you have a better insight into Christianity than Christ did is what is sad.

Where would Christianity be if Jesus got lwop instead of the death penalty?

[slydevl]

In 1962, James Moore raped and strangled 14-year-old Pamela Moss. Her parents decided to spare Moore the death penalty on the condition that he be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Later on, thanks to a change in sentencing laws in 1982, James Moore is eligible for parole every two years!

[hasbeen99]

Originally posted by McFly41
A very high majority of those put to death are guilty. For those very few who are innocent, I consider them colateral damage.

This statement actually supports the Christian position, IMO. As judges determining who deserves life and death, men are imperfect. There will be 'collateral damage'. Christians believe only God can both judge perfectly and execute appropriate punishment, and He will.

And as for God, if God is such a powerful force...how would the death penalty even exist if he/she deemed it to be wrong?

Without getting into another long discussion (we've already done a thread on this), the short answer is free will. God has given mankind an undetermined amount of time to exercise our will with little intervention from Him. But when He reclaims this world and rids it of evil, there will be no cause for capital punishment because there will be no crime.

The Bible contradicts itself. One passage says one thing, another says the opposite. It's a book, it's open to interperetation.

When one looks at the text without taking into consideration changes in culture and setting (context) over the course of several hundred years, yes it does seem self-contradictory. But when taking those factors into account, you'll find that it isn't. And when people start taking passages out of their proper context to make a point, the integrity of the Bible is lost, and the whole thing comes apart. Too often, this is what happens.

[slydevl]

Kenneth McDuff, for instance, was convicted of the 1966 shooting deaths of two boys and the vicious rape-strangulation of their 16-year-old female companion. A Fort Worth jury ruled that McDuff should die in the electric chair, a sentence commuted to life in prison in 1972 after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the death penalty as then imposed. In 1989, with Texas prisons overflowing and state officials under fire from the federal judiciary, McDuff was quietly turned loose on an unsuspecting citizenry.

Within days, a naked body of a woman turned up. Prostitute Sarafia Parker, 31, had been beaten, strangled and dumped in a field near Temple. McDuff's freedom in 1989 was interrupted briefly. Jailed after a minor racial incident, he slithered through the system and was out again in 1990.

In early 1991, McDuff enrolled at Texas State Technical College in Waco. Soon, Central Texas prostitutes began disappearing. One, Valencia Joshua, 22, was last seen alive Feb. 24, 1991. Her naked, decomposed body later was discovered in a shallow grave in woods behind the college. Another of the missing women, Regenia Moore, was last seen kicking and screaming in the cab of McDuff's pickup truck. During the Christmas holidays of 1991, Colleen Reed disappeared from an Austin car wash. Witnesses reported hearing a woman scream that night and seeing two men speeding away in a yellow or tan Thunderbird. Little more than two months later, on March 1, 1992, Melissa Northrup, pregnant with a third child, vanished from the Waco convenience store where she worked. McDuff's beige Thunderbird, broken down, was discovered a block from the store.

Fifty-seven days later, a fisherman found the young woman's nearly nude body floating in a gravel pit in Dallas County, 90 miles north of Waco. By then, McDuff was the target of a nationwide manhunt. Just days after Mrs. Northrup's funeral, McDuff was recognized on television's "America's Most Wanted'' and arrested May 4 in Kansas City.

In 1993, a Houston jury ordered him executed for the kidnap-slaying of 22-year-old Melissa Northrup, a Waco mother of two. In 1994, a Seguin jury assessed him the death penalty for the abduction-rape-murder of 28-year-old Colleen Reed, an Austin accountant. Pamplin's son Larry, the current sheriff of Falls County, appeared at McDuff's Houston trial for the 1992 abduction and murder of Melissa Northrup.

"Kenneth McDuff is absolutely the most vicious and savage individual I know,'' he told reporters. "He has absolutely no conscience, and I think he enjoys killing.''
If McDuff had been executed as scheduled, he said, "no telling how many lives would have been saved.''

[slydevl]

"A certain man planted a vineyard, leased it to vinedressers, and went into a far country for a long time. Now at vintage-time he sent a servant to the vinedressers, that they might gave him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the vinedressers beat him and sent him away empty-handed. Again he sent another servant; and they beat him also, treated him shamefully, and sent him away empty-handed. And again he sent a third; and they wounded him also and cast him out. then the owner of the vineyard said, 'What shall I do? I will send my beloved son. Probably they will respect him when they see him.' But when the vinedressers saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, 'This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.' So they cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore what will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and destroy those vinedressers and give the vineyard to others." -Luke 20:9-16.

Jesus states in that parable that the proper punishment for murder is death. Christ also pronounced this judgment on those who rebelled against their king:

"But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me." -Luke19:27

In the 19:27 parable their king is Jesus. So it is very clear that neither Christ nor His apostles intended to abrogate the God-given responsibility of the state (under Old Testament Law) to protect its citizens and enforce justice by capital punishment.

[hasbeen99]

Originally posted by gridfaniker
I believe that the Bible teachings are open to interpretation. Much of that is done by preachers/ministers from denomination to denomination. For example, a Baptist minister and Methodist minister and Presbyterian minister could very well all interpret the same piece of scripture in a different manner. The congregations, then, also walk out of Sunday service with differing views. It makes sense, then, that Christians as a whole could have very differing opinions on the death penalty and how it jibes of doesn't jobe with their personal believes. Thus, to generalize and call all Christians who believe in the death penalty "fucking hypocrites" is, in my opinion, wrong.

To a certain extent, I agree with you Grid. Certainly the Bible is open to some interpretation. And yes, the various denominations each have interpreted significant doctrinal issues in differing ways, hence their varying positions. But there is also a point when subjective doctrinal or scriptural debate is flawed by personal agenda or even incompetency, both of which have plagued Christianity through its history.

Keeping that in mind, I might agree that Sadic's words might be a little strong, but contain much truth, too.

[slydevl]

Hasbeens,

You yourself have said on this very board that Jesus came to fulfill the law not to change the law. God's law on capital punishment could not be any clearer.

How can you explain this contradiction of yours?

[hasbeen99]

Originally posted by sadic1
In the scenario you've given, the first and only thing in my heart would be to protect my loved ones. My first and only intent should be to do what was necessary to protect them and no more. If the result of that was that the invader was killed, I would trust that God would judge my heart and know that I didn't want to kill that person and my only intent was to do what was necessary to prevent harm from coming to my family. If someone was attacking my family and I had the choice between killing them and wishing them away, I would wish them away. If someone was attacking my family and I disarmed them and wounded them to the point of incapacitation, and I then chose to put a bullet in their brain rather than wait for the cops, I would be a murderer, regardless of the damage done to my family prior. ...Bear in mind that I don't know that I'd be able to make all the right choices in the attack scenario described above, but if I did not, I would ask God's forgiveness.

Well said, Sadic. :applause:

[hasbeen99]

Originally posted by gridfaniker
And I respect your beliefs as a Christian just as I'm sure you respect other people's beliefs as Christians.

But that's the thing, Grid. As Christians, we're all supposed to have the same basic beliefs. There are going to be variations, even within denominations, but they should be minor.

Since Christians may vary in their beliefs relative to a certain matter (capital punishment, i.e.), one can't be fairly labled a hypocrite by another. If her or she truly believes in his or her heart that capital punishment is not wrong and does not run contrary to their faith, they are not being hypocritical.

With regard to doctrine, I do not feel the issue is belief, but education. If someone has been taught that God is for or against something, and they adhere to that teaching, then they may be misinformed or ignorant, but not hypocritical. If they've been taught one thing and believe another because it 'feels right', that is another issue entirely. Wouldn't you agree?

[hasbeen99]

Sly, I know you didn't write this, but as you posted it and stated you agree with it, I'll respond to you.

Originally posted by slydevl
Christ could have said to the repentant thief, "It does not matter what you have done, capital punishment is wrong. It should be done away with." But, he did not say that when he had a golden opportunity to say it.

Basing doctrine on what Jesus didn't say is a slippery slope at best.

Christ did neither, but in fact invited those without sin to throw the first stone. John 8:7 says, "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." This is hardly a rejection of capital punishment.

Actually it is, but by action rather than words. His point was that the authorities of that time were not worthy to judge the adultress, who was caught red-handed. He was the only one worthy to judge her, and He chose grace.

look at Romans 13:1-7...

Yes, that verse does instruct submission to authorities, and also acknowledges the authorities use of 'the sword'. But I would also submit that those who wield the sword are also subject to God's judgment, and held to a higher standard because of that responsibility.

But something else to keep in mind is that there is a precedent set where God has used governments and militaries to enact His judgment on other countries, especially 'evildoers'. I think the meaning of the verse is wider than this application.

If Romans 13:4 is not clear enough for you, there is another incident that involves the apostle Paul that should make it clearer yet. ...What Paul is saying certainly is clear enough is it not? He says, "if I have committed a crime deserving of the death penalty then I will not fight it. But I have not and so I appeal to Caesar."

Again, the context must be considered. The Scripture quoted refers to an incident where Paul was being persecuted by the 'locals' for preaching the gospel of Christ. The locals wanted to punish him without a trial. But Paul knew Roman law, and as he was technically a Roman citizen, he knew he was entitled to a fair trial. The reason he pressed for it was because he knew he hadn't broken any Roman laws, and they were still the authority of the day. In short, he used Roman law to continue his ministry.

The prerogative of capital punishment is established in Genesis 9:6, developed in the Mosaic law and reaffirmed in the New Testament. Capital punishment IS Biblical. It is for today.

Genesis 9:6 reads...
"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."

First of all, the structure of this text indicates it was written in poetic form, and is rather vague. Second, we must not assume that this is a clear-cut mandate for capital punishment without at least considering other possible interpretations. For example, this could be a prediction rather than instruction. It could be saying that we will shed the blood of our fellow man for punishment because we were created in the image of God, and therefore will want to act like Him in this circumstance. I'm not saying that's the true interpretation, nor am I saying that it's definitely not endorsing capital punishment. My point is to illustrate that our first impression of Scripture isn't always the right one.

[hasbeen99]

Originally posted by gridfaniker
I'm sure there are lots of Christians who have certain beliefs that are in no way derived from their faith in God. In many instances, I'm sure, that's the case here.

I agree that's true, but I don't think it's right. A Christian should strive to have God's influence in all his or her decisions and beliefs. That is the only way to fulfill the promise of a full life, given to us in John 10:10.

[hasbeen99]

Originally posted by vpkozel
Well, now that you bring up the crucifixion, I would think that you could argue that God letting his son be executed would count as at least a tacit approval for this as a form of punishment.

An interesting point, VP. I hadn't thought of it that way before. Jesus' crucifixion was necessary for salvation doctrine and prophecy to be fulfilled, but you're right in that at least in that incident, He approved the execution.

But there are other important factors to keep in mind. First, the crucifixion was an intregal part of God's plan to save the rest of us, and therefore necessary. Second, Jesus was taking a one-time punishment while carrying every sin ever committed. That is a much different standard than your everyday murderer. Third, the execution was allowed by not only God, but Jesus Himself. Those could be considered special circumstances, and may not be applicable to every instance of capital crime since.

[hasbeen99]

Originally posted by slydevl
Where would Christianity be if Jesus got lwop instead of the death penalty?

It wasn't an option, and it wasn't applicable, Sly. Jesus was crucified for heresy and for political reasons, according to his executioners. But as Christians, we know the real reason He was nailed to the cross -- it was the price He paid for all of us. If lwop would've paid our debt in God's eyes, that's what He would've gotten. To attempt to apply the same act without those circumstances would be faulty.

[hasbeen99]

Originally posted by slydevl
In 1962, James Moore raped and strangled 14-year-old Pamela Moss. Her parents decided to spare Moore the death penalty on the condition that he be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Later on, thanks to a change in sentencing laws in 1982, James Moore is eligible for parole every two years!

Okay, but do you think James Moore actually will end up getting off easy? God didn't give him parole from His sentence. James Moore will one day have to stand in God's court without his lawyer, or the Moss's, against a Judge who knows EVERYTHING, and subject to law that has no loopholes. And no government on earth can punish James Moore like God can.

[hasbeen99]

Originally posted by slydevl
"A certain man planted a vineyard, leased it to vinedressers, and went into a far country for a long time. Now at vintage-time he sent a servant to the vinedressers, that they might gave him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the vinedressers beat him and sent him away empty-handed. Again he sent another servant; and they beat him also, treated him shamefully, and sent him away empty-handed. And again he sent a third; and they wounded him also and cast him out. then the owner of the vineyard said, 'What shall I do? I will send my beloved son. Probably they will respect him when they see him.' But when the vinedressers saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, 'This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.' So they cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore what will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and destroy those vinedressers and give the vineyard to others." -Luke 20:9-16.

Jesus states in that parable that the proper punishment for murder is death.

I strongly disagree. The parable is about God's judgment of the earth.

"But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me." -Luke19:27

In the 19:27 parable their king is Jesus. So it is very clear that neither Christ nor His apostles intended to abrogate the God-given responsibility of the state (under Old Testament Law) to protect its citizens and enforce justice by capital punishment.

:saywhat: Sly, I have no idea how you make the connection from a parable that describes Judgment Day to an endorsement of human justice. Can you elaborate for me please? :huh:

[vpkozel]

Originally posted by hasbeen99


An interesting point, VP. I hadn't thought of it that way before. Jesus' crucifixion was necessary for salvation doctrine and prophecy to be fulfilled, but you're right in that at least in that incident, He approved the execution.

But there are other important factors to keep in mind. First, the crucifixion was an intregal part of God's plan to save the rest of us, and therefore necessary. Second, Jesus was taking a one-time punishment while carrying every sin ever committed. That is a much different standard than your everyday murderer. Third, the execution was allowed by not only God, but Jesus Himself. Those could be considered special circumstances, and may not be applicable to every instance of capital crime since.

Was it neccessary that he be killed as a criminal, or would it have sufficed that he was killed by man. God could have let him be assaisinated, or die by man's hand someother way. The most important aspect was that he had to die, so that he could be resurected. That was the crucial thing and why Easter is the holiest day.

[hasbeen99]

Originally posted by slydevl
Hasbeens,

You yourself have said on this very board that Jesus came to fulfill the law not to change the law. God's law on capital punishment could not be any clearer.

How can you explain this contradiction of yours?

Actually, I have quoted Jesus as saying He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. He did change it in several ways.

My understanding of God's position on capital punishment is that it is warranted from time to time, but we are unworthy judges to decide when and where. Only He is worthy to decide who deserves death.

[hasbeen99]

Originally posted by vpkozel
Was it neccessary that he be killed as a criminal, or would it have sufficed that he was killed by man. God could have let him be assaisinated, or die by man's hand someother way. The most important aspect was that he had to die, so that he could be resurected. That was the crucial thing and why Easter is the holiest day.

It was necessary that He be killed in exactly the way he was, because He had to fulfill all the prophecies. Crucifixion was the most horrid and most severe punishment of that day, and that was only part of the price that God set to pay for our sins. His death, the torture, the rejection, the ridicule was all part of it and all necessary.

[Rob]

This is an interesting thread. Thank you all.

As a Christian myself I find it difficult to support capital punishment. To me it devalues human life. That is happening more and more in society today. Human life is the most precious thing on earth.

I believe God created every one of us for a purpose and to take a life is to take away opportunities. Lock them up and throw away the key but leave the judgement up to God.

[McFly41]

"When one looks at the text without taking into consideration changes in culture and setting (context) over the course of several hundred years, yes it does seem self-contradictory. But when taking those factors into account, you'll find that it isn't. And when people start taking passages out of their proper context to make a point, the integrity of the Bible is lost, and the whole thing comes apart. Too often, this is what happens."

On the contraditory point, it either is or it isn't ...in the now that is. In the past, it probably wasn't contrdictory, but thanks to time and change and people adding their interperetations...it's become little more than another piece of fine literature.
The fact that people have molded the words of the bible and tried to apply it to situations it does not apply to made me turn my back on organized religion. Bible thumpers running around screaming "believe as I do or go to HELL" have destroyed whatever purpose the respective religions originally intended.

[slydevl]

Originally posted by hasbeen99


I strongly disagree. The parable is about God's judgment of the earth.



:saywhat: Sly, I have no idea how you make the connection from a parable that describes Judgment Day to an endorsement of human justice. Can you elaborate for me please? :huh:

Why would Jesus, a man you and sadic claim to be opposed to the death penalty, use two separate parables that illustrate humans justly killing other humans?

[slydevl]

Originally posted by hasbeen99
Sly, I know you didn't write this, but as you posted it and stated you agree with it, I'll respond to you.



Basing doctrine on what Jesus didn't say is a slippery slope at best.





Isn't that exactly what you and sadic are doing? Putting words in Jesus's mouth? He never condemned capital punishment did he?

[slydevl]

Originally posted by hasbeen99

My understanding of God's position on capital punishment is that it is warranted from time to time, but we are unworthy judges to decide when and where. Only He is worthy to decide who deserves death.

I am confused. Did God not give us as humans a clear set of rules to follow among those rules being times when it is proper to use capital punishment. It is not as if humans are making that decision willy nilly. God clearly said if a human does this then kill him. So God in effect is the judge.

[Rob]

Originally posted by McFly41
"When one looks at the text without taking into consideration changes in culture and setting (context) over the course of several hundred years, yes it does seem self-contradictory. But when taking those factors into account, you'll find that it isn't. And when people start taking passages out of their proper context to make a point, the integrity of the Bible is lost, and the whole thing comes apart. Too often, this is what happens."

On the contraditory point, it either is or it isn't ...in the now that is. In the past, it probably wasn't contrdictory, but thanks to time and change and people adding their interperetations...it's become little more than another piece of fine literature.
The fact that people have molded the words of the bible and tried to apply it to situations it does not apply to made me turn my back on organized religion. Bible thumpers running around screaming "believe as I do or go to HELL" have destroyed whatever purpose the respective religions originally intended.


Good points. It isn't enough just to read the bible. You must study it. You are right about the context of the time so long ago. Also words can have different meanings in Hebrew than English. That's why there is so much debate. The Bible has stood the test of time very well. We have more ancient manuscripts of the bible than any other book. What we have today is a very close copy of the original. It is important to take the bible as a whole rather than pick and choose passages. Look at what it says throughout and you will find a unified work that fits together in a miraculous way for a book written over thousands of years by many different people from many walks of life.

I agree with you about organized "Religion." Christianity is about a personal RELATIONSHIP with Christ. I am not real crazy about the bible thumpers judging others or the scare you to Christ with stories of hell approach. Those wanting to witness to others should do so with their actions first. An attitude of "I am just a beggar trying to tell other beggars where they can find some free food" is the one to take. We must be humble and reflect the love Christ lived. There is no room for selfishness.

[hasbeen99]

Originally posted by McFly41
On the contraditory point, it either is or it isn't ...in the now that is. In the past, it probably wasn't contrdictory, but thanks to time and change and people adding their interperetations...it's become little more than another piece of fine literature.
The fact that people have molded the words of the bible and tried to apply it to situations it does not apply to made me turn my back on organized religion. Bible thumpers running around screaming "believe as I do or go to HELL" have destroyed whatever purpose the respective religions originally intended.

I've often seen things in my study of the Bible that seem obviously contradictory, until I researched further and recognized that the two contradictory items occurred several hundred years apart in vastly different circumstances. For example, most of the contradictions people refer to occur between the laws given to the tribes of Israel and the culture in the New Testament. It would be like trying to apply the same rules and laws of the Native Americans to the United States. They were necessary for the time and circumstance they were given, but as the culture changed, the laws changed to better serve the culture. The Bible is static about its principles and truths, but dynamic in its practical application, specifically so it will be practical.

But unfortunately you make a very valid point about men throughout history taking Scripture and twisting its truths to fit their own agenda, thereby destroying its integrity and its authority. That is specifically why I study the Bible for myself and don't take my pastor's (or anyone else's) teaching at face value. The Bible is the only constant, and even then, the consistencies among the versions are where the truths lie.

[hasbeen99]

Originally posted by slydevl
Why would Jesus, a man you and sadic claim to be opposed to the death penalty, use two separate parables that illustrate humans justly killing other humans?

In the first parable you cite, (that of the vineyard owner) the landowner is God. The servants he sends are the prophets, the son is Jesus. The farmers who beat and kill the servants and the son are the Pharisees and religious rulers of Israel. That being the context, the landowner's return to kill his old farm hands to give his land to other tenants who will share in his crop is a picture of Christ's return. If you read a little further in the chapter, all this is explained.

The second parable is the parable of the ten 'talents' or 'minas'. The point of disagreement is how the king has his wicked servants who reject him as king slain before him. If you look in verse 11 of that parable, you see that Jesus is talking about the kingdom of heaven, not the streets of Israel. The king who goes away, is betrayed by some of his servants, and returns to exact judgment is Jesus Himself.

Again, outside the context, these stories could be interpreted to advocate capital punishment of ordinary criminals. But within the context in which it was presented and written, we see the stories are meant to teach and warn about Jesus return on Judgment Day.

[slydevl]

Originally posted by hasbeen99


In the first parable you cite, (that of the vineyard owner) the landowner is God. The servants he sends are the prophets, the son is Jesus. The farmers who beat and kill the servants and the son are the Pharisees and religious rulers of Israel. That being the context, the landowner's return to kill his old farm hands to give his land to other tenants who will share in his crop is a picture of Christ's return. If you read a little further in the chapter, all this is explained.

The second parable is the parable of the ten 'talents' or 'minas'. The point of disagreement is how the king has his wicked servants who reject him as king slain before him. If you look in verse 11 of that parable, you see that Jesus is talking about the kingdom of heaven, not the streets of Israel. The king who goes away, is betrayed by some of his servants, and returns to exact judgment is Jesus Himself.

Again, outside the context, these stories could be interpreted to advocate capital punishment of ordinary criminals. But within the context in which it was presented and written, we see the stories are meant to teach and warn about Jesus return on Judgment Day.

I am not and have never doubted that the two stories are parables. I also don't argue with your interpretation of them. But a parable is a story meant to convey a difficult religious concept which usually consisted of events the audience could easily understand. Now please answer my question, why would Jesus use two parables that consist of examples where humans justly killing humans is acceptable if he is indeed against capital punishment.

[hasbeen99]

Originally posted by slydevl
Isn't that exactly what you and sadic are doing? Putting words in Jesus's mouth? He never condemned capital punishment did he?

While it is true that to my knowledge He never directly spoke against capital punishment directly, why then do you think He intervened to spare the adultress? Do His actions not illustrate that humans are unworthy to judge and exact judgment on other humans?

[Sportsgirl]

Benjamin Franklin once said, "That it is better that 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer, is a maxim that has been long and generally approved."

This pretty much sums it up for me. I've never been comfortable with the death penalty. I'm all for justice, but that even one innocent person might be executed for a crime he or she didn't commit is not acceptable.

[BearBryant]

Will anyone get mad if I delete this thread?

[slydevl]

Originally posted by hasbeen99


While it is true that to my knowledge He never directly spoke against capital punishment directly, why then do you think He intervened to spare the adultress? Do His actions not illustrate that humans are unworthy to judge and exact judgment on other humans?

Because the adulteress was never going to be killed in the first place.....it was a trap designed to force Jesus into denying the Old Testament law.

[slydevl]

The more I think about it the more I believe that Jesus was counciling against a personal desire for revenge. He taught that it was not the individuals responsibility to punish but he never said anything or condemned the responsibility of whatever authority was in power to punish people.

I think it would be wrong for an executioner to enjoy or take satisfaction from his job just as I think it wrong for a victim to take satisfaction in capital punishment (comfort and satisfaction being two entirely different things). But I don't it wrong for government to continue their God ordained responsibility of capital punishment.

[hasbeen99]

Originally posted by slydevl
I am confused. Did God not give us as humans a clear set of rules to follow among those rules being times when it is proper to use capital punishment. It is not as if humans are making that decision willy nilly. God clearly said if a human does this then kill him. So God in effect is the judge.

I have not yet found a clear, universally applicable statute for capital punishment in the Bible. If you have, please let me know where it is. (I'm not saying one doesn't exist -- I'm saying I haven't seen it yet. Please don't take this comment as sarcasm, as it was not intended as such, okay? :) )

[slydevl]

Originally posted by hasbeen99


I have not yet found a clear, universally applicable statute for capital punishment in the Bible. If you have, please let me know where it is. (I'm not saying one doesn't exist -- I'm saying I haven't seen it yet. Please don't take this comment as sarcasm, as it was not intended as such, okay? :) )

You have your opinion about Gen 9:6

How about
Exodus 21
Exodus 22
Lev. 20
Deut 18-19

[SilverSurfer]

Originally posted by BearBryant
Will anyone get mad if I delete this thread?

I won't.

I wonder how come it didn't get moved to News of the Day though? :confused:

[hasbeen99]

Originally posted by slydevl
...a parable is a story meant to convey a difficult religious concept which usually consisted of events the audience could easily understand. Now please answer my question, why would Jesus use two parables that consist of examples where humans justly killing humans is acceptable if he is indeed against capital punishment.

I see your point now, Sly. Jesus used common settings to convey abstract spiritual principles. If I'm correct, you're asking why Jesus would use an illustration of the human landowner and the human king killing his subordinates if it wasn't 1) common practice, and 2) within His law.

Okay, sorry I was a little slow on the uptake there, Sly. That's an excellent question. I would answer by saying that several times, Jesus used common settings with uncommon actions within the stories. For example, how many landowners would give the same wages to someone who worked 1 hour as 8? How many people would sweep an entire house for a coin? How many shepherds would gather his friends together and throw a party because he found one lost sheep out of 100? See what I mean?

The second thing I would say is that the key figures in these parables do not represent men, but God Himself. I'm sure you would agree that there is a significant difference between God's judgment and our own, to say the least.

[hasbeen99]

Originally posted by slydevl
Because the adulteress was never going to be killed in the first place.....it was a trap designed to force Jesus into denying the Old Testament law.

I disagree in that if Jesus had not been there, she would've been like any othere adultress in violation of the Old Testament law, and would definitely have been stoned to death. But yes, it was a test to see if Jesus was on the same page as the Pharisees.

[slydevl]

Originally posted by hasbeen99


I disagree in that if Jesus had not been there, she would've been like any othere adultress in violation of the Old Testament law, and would definitely have been stoned to death. But yes, it was a test to see if Jesus was on the same page as the Pharisees.

I think the important thing to take from the story is that Jesus did not deny either the old Mosaic law or the new Roman law. Once again I must point out that Jesus was given the opportunity to condemn capital punishment in a clear and unmistakable way and did not.

[hasbeen99]

Originally posted by slydevl
The more I think about it the more I believe that Jesus was counciling against a personal desire for revenge. He taught that it was not the individuals responsibility to punish but he never said anything or condemned the responsibility of whatever authority was in power to punish people.

How did you reach this conclusion? How could this be an act of revenge? What did the Pharisees (the de facto government of that culture) have personally against her? Remember, Sly, this was not a parable -- this was an actual event. If there was no evidence of personal retribution toward her from the Pharisees, how could it be revenge?

I think it would be wrong for an executioner to enjoy or take satisfaction from his job just as I think it wrong for a victim to take satisfaction in capital punishment (comfort and satisfaction being two entirely different things).

Now this, I agree with 100%. :)

[slydevl]

Originally posted by hasbeen99


How did you reach this conclusion? How could this be an act of revenge? What did the Pharisees (the de facto government of that culture) have personally against her? Remember, Sly, this was not a parable -- this was an actual event. If there was no evidence of personal retribution toward her from the Pharisees, how could it be revenge?



Now this, I agree with 100%. :)

I was talking about Jesus' overall teachings here and not that specific incident. Sorry i wasn't more clear.

[Superfluous_Nut]

Regarding race and its effect on death penalty cases. You have to look as well at what is considered criteria for the death penalty. Do the powers that be go easier on crimes commited by those they identify with? Like stealing from thousands of investors warranting less punishment than stealing from a single persons home.

[D'lo]

Originally posted by Superfluous_Nut
Regarding race and its effect on death penalty cases. You have to look as well at what is considered criteria for the death penalty. Do the powers that be go easier on crimes commited by those they identify with? Like stealing from thousands of investors warranting less punishment than stealing from a single persons home.

I didn't know stealing got you the death penalty.

[hasbeen99]

Originally posted by slydevl
You have your opinion about Gen 9:6

How about
Exodus 21
Exodus 22
Lev. 20
Deut 18-19

Taken in the context with the rest of these chapters, Gen 9:6 actually makes the strongest argument, IMO.

However, I believe the Law was introduced to show God's standard, which is nearly impossible for us to live up to. I think much of the Mosaic law is the foundation for 'the wages of sin is death'. Much of the law is a picture of what sin can look like when applied to everyday life. I think that is why so many offenses in that law warrant death that seem too harsh by our standards. I mean really, are you prepared, Sly, as a Christian to put Fred and Builder to death? Of course not. Neither am I. And even if we did, our own government would consider that 1st degree murder and execute us!

I've concluded that the Mosaic law was given to show us unequivocally that even though we're created in the image of God, we fall far short of His ideal. It is a mirror that reflects our sin. That is not to say we shouldn't still try to live up to it.

The grace of Jesus Christ comes into play eventually, but to what extent, I'm not certain. Maybe that's my own dilemma. I still feel we are, as a whole unfit judges to carry out that level of judgment. But in reviewing the law, I concede there is a strong mandate for capital punishment. The only caveat I can see is Christ's charge to the Pharisees:

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

And perhaps that is why I believe the way I do. None of us are without sin. If any did exist, they would be worthy to carry out the law as it was given in the Old Testament. But as there aren't any who are sinless, we are not worthy to cast our stones, even against those whose actions warrant death.

[hasbeen99]

Originally posted by slydevl
I was talking about Jesus' overall teachings here and not that specific incident. Sorry i wasn't more clear.

I agree with this to a large degree, too. To me, there seems to be a different set of standards for individuals and governments. The individual must turn the other cheek, whereas the government has been used by God to not only make war, but enact punishment to other countries and cultures, often with terrible results.

I think where we're parting ways is civil government vs. military. Maybe you're right, and the two are equal, or at least live under the same standard given by God. I've never thought the civil government shared that standard, but I could be mistaken. At this point, I don't have enough evidence or insight to rule your point completely out.

But if it were up to me, I'd still vote against capital punishment. Not because it's not Biblical necessarily, but because I prefer to leave judgment to God Himself. But that's just me.

[Rob]

Originally posted by hasbeen99



I've concluded that the Mosaic law was given to show us unequivocally that even though we're created in the image of God, we fall far short of His ideal. It is a mirror that reflects our sin. That is not to say we shouldn't still try to live up to it.



I agree 100%. I also might add that Jesus actually raised the bar even farther in his teachings found in the sermon on the mount. He took sin down to the thought process. No way anyone measures up.

[Superfluous_Nut]

Originally posted by D'lo


I didn't know stealing got you the death penalty.

My point was that there is a disparity of punishment fitting the crime at all levels. Crack is more punishable than is cocaine, for example. If the disparity exists there, then it's not hard to imagine it exists for death penalty cases as well.