Stanley Tookie Williams

[YBORCITY]

Stanley Tookie Williams life was not any more valuable than the four people he killed in cold blood.

The way I look at it - he actually got better than the victims he shot. He had many more years to live than the Victims did.

 

[BVS]

Let's go further. Even Paul acknowledge that he could face capital punishment if he did something wrong in Acts 25:11 "If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die. But if the charges brought against me by these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!" emphasis added

Knowing your fate and knowing it's right or wrong are two entirely different things.

 

[BVS]

The cross was only used by the Romans as the cruelest (and talk to a doctor, it really is horrendous) form of capital punishment.

Yes I know but you didn't answer my question?

 

[AliEnvy]

In each of the five books of the Pentateuch, there are provisions for capital punishment - covering over 20 different offenses. These provision were given before and after the handing down of the Ten Commandments.

Do you have anything more specific in these books after the commandments that you can quote?

So far the scriptures you've quoted are weak at best...very easily arguable.

 

[Dreadsox]

So far the scriptures you've quoted are weak at best...very easily arguable.

As is any scripture.....

There are contradictions throughout.

 

[AliEnvy]

For those quoting thou shalt not kill.....

I believe through my readings that the commandment in its original translation is "Thou shalt not murder".

So what?

Originally posted by Dreadsox
Murder...premeditated....one man against another is not the same as a Government enforcing the law.

How so? If the law supports capital punishment, that's just premeditated murder by the state.

 

[Justin24]

So is this how the Crips was started then??? http://www.vidking.com/viewvideo.php?id=1089

 

[Dreadsox]

So what?

I cannot help you if you do not see the difference between premeditated murder verses those using "Thou shalt not kill" as a means to fight the death penalty.

There is a distinct difference.

But given the level of reponse "so what" I am not going to channel any more of my valuable energy into this.

Peace

 

[financeguy]

Regarding the various scriptural references being thrown around to support one point of view or another I offer the following:-

"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means." - George Bernard Shaw

 

[AliEnvy]

As is any scripture.....

There are contradictions throughout.

You got that right.

I just don't see any actual support for capital punishment as justified in God's view in those passages.

Show me something more concrete.

 

[nbcrusader]

Do you have anything more specific in these books after the commandments that you can quote?

So far the scriptures you've quoted are weak at best...very easily arguable.

You can start with Exodus 21:12 and go from there.

Perhaps you could provide your argument to support your claim of "weakness".

 

[Dreadsox]

How so? If the law supports capital punishment, that's just premeditated murder by the state.

Your opinion, not mine.

I suppose it depends on your view of what governement is and where they get the authority from.

NBC has provided scriptural references that have been dismissed as easily challenged.

Challenge them.

 

[Dreadsox]

"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means." - George Bernard Shaw

Excellent post....

 

[nbcrusader]

Yes I know but you didn't answer my question?

Your question was wondering about what God could have said. I think it would be inapporpriate to guess what God could have said.

 

[financeguy]

I am confused by both sides in this debate - to be blunt, why should the writings of scholars and sheep herders 2,000 or more years ago have any significant bearing on our current criminal justice system?

 

[BVS]

Murder...premeditated....one man against another is not the same as a Government enforcing the law.

But then we get into a game of semantics.

Modern day definition of murder :

Function: verb

to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
-------------------------------
So given this definition, if it's not premeditated is it not murder?

If it wasn't a written law, would it not be murder. Then we get into the semantics of before the commandments was killing right?

It's a game of semantics, the difference between murder and killing. I've seen people use this difference to justify some horrible things.

So I honestly don't see the difference in this situation.

Capital punishment is premeditated.
Capital punishment comes with malice.
So the only thing making it not murder is because it's legal?

If that's the case, one can pass a law that killing redheads is legal, and therefore would be right given this semantic game with commandments.

 

[nbcrusader]

So what?

Can we get a bit more substance.

Dread highlighted a significant point.

 

[financeguy]

Excellent post....

I believe this is another one for the diary.

 

[Dreadsox]

I believe this is another one for the diary.

We would have fun drinking a pint I think.

 

[financeguy]

We would have fun drinking a pint I think.

Well I'd like to think so too.

 

[nbcrusader]

But then we get into a game of semantics.

Modern day definition of murder :

Function: verb

to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
-------------------------------
So given this definition, if it's not premeditated is it not murder?

If it wasn't a written law, would it not be murder. Then we get into the semantics of before the commandments was killing right?

It's a game of semantics, the difference between murder and killing. I've seen people use this difference to justify some horrible things.

So I honestly don't see the difference in this situation.

Capital punishment is premeditated.
Capital punishment comes with malice.
So the only thing making it not murder is because it's legal?

If that's the case, one can pass a law that killing redheads is legal, and therefore would be right given this semantic game with commandments.

Capital punishment is not premeditated, but the result of extensive due process through the legal system. A significant difference.

Capital punishment is not done with malice. With your suggestion, any form of punishment at the hands of a judicial system is malice.

The difference between killing and murder is not semantics. Legal systems have acknowledged this difference over history and hand out differing levels of punishment based on this difference. That is why we have degrees of murder and manslaughter in our penal code.

 

[AliEnvy]

I cannot help you if you do not see the difference between premeditated murder verses those using "Thou shalt not kill" as a means to fight the death penalty.

There is a distinct difference.

But given the level of reponse "so what" I am not going to channel any more of my valuable energy into this.

Peace

No, kill and murder are basically synonyms so there is no difference really.

Thank you for bowing out gracefully with only condescending dismissal

 

[BVS]

Your question was wondering about what God could have said. I think it would be inapporpriate to guess what God could have said.

No, I was asking someone who believed the Bible is God's word(you) why, if he meant THIS did he say THAT?

People are going to use that piece of scripture as a justification, which you have used if I remember right.

So I want to see how someone uses that line, in that context as justification because I don't see it at all.

 

[Dreadsox]

But then we get into a game of semantics.

Modern day definition of murder :

Function: verb

to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
-------------------------------
So given this definition, if it's not premeditated is it not murder?

If it wasn't a written law, would it not be murder. Then we get into the semantics of before the commandments was killing right?

It's a game of semantics, the difference between murder and killing. I've seen people use this difference to justify some horrible things.

So I honestly don't see the difference in this situation.

Capital punishment is premeditated.
Capital punishment comes with malice.
So the only thing making it not murder is because it's legal?

If that's the case, one can pass a law that killing redheads is legal, and therefore would be right given this semantic game with commandments.

I disagree about it being "semantics".

I also disagree that Capital Punishment comes with malice.

If people are quoting "thou shalt not kill" as an argument against a legally formed governement it is plain wrong.

"Thou shalt not Kill....or more appropriately "Thou shalt not murder" is again an instruction to an individual. Not a legally formed government.

 

[nbcrusader]

No, I was asking someone who believed the Bible is God's word(you) why, if he meant THIS did he say THAT?

People are going to use that piece of scripture as a justification, which you have used if I remember right.

So I want to see how someone uses that line, in that context as justification because I don't see it at all.

We don't agree on the THIS and the THAT. Jesus' statements are consistent with capital punishment. Given the many methods used in the day, I am not surprised that he used a general statement instead of listing out the specific methods you could face.

If written 30-60 years ago, you would be expecting Jesus to say "Live by the sword, die by the electic chair, gas chamber, firing squad, hanging, lethal injection, etc." It doesn't make sense to establish that requirement for His words.

 

[Dreadsox]

No, kill and murder are basically synonyms so there is no difference really.

Kill and Murder according to a linguist would not be synonyms. That is quite a stretch, and if this is the argument....Then those who believe that the Soddom and Gamorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality are correct.

For consistency in my belief system, I believe words and word choices from ancient times to today deserve more respect than dismissing them as synonyms.

You want to chat I will chat, but so what may not be the best choice of words, unless you really have no desire for a dialogue.

 

[nbcrusader]

No, kill and murder are basically synonyms so there is no difference really.

Thank you for bowing out gracefully with only condescending dismissal

There is a significant difference. It has been explained here. You can do further research if you want.

No need to turn it into an attack on Dread.

 

[AliEnvy]

Excellent post....

So true. The George Bernard Shaw quote.

 

[*Ally*]

Capital punishment is not premeditated, but the result of extensive due process through the legal system. A significant difference.

the problem is that due process is often denied due to the flawed nature of our legal system. the fact is that if someone is poor, they will most likely receive sub-par legal representation. sadly, this can make a difference between life and death. moreover, how many people on death row have later been exonerated by DNA evidence? fortunately for them, they had not yet been killed (and yes, it is a killing). this is a perfect illustration of the fact that the so-called "due process" afforded by our legal system is sometimes woefully inadequate.

Capital punishment is not done with malice. With your suggestion, any form of punishment at the hands of a judicial system is malice.

i have to disagree with you here. there are other reasons, besides malice, for sentencing a person to time in prison. first, it is often necessary to do so to protect the public from dangerous criminals. second, some people believe that prison time can serve as a way to rehabilitate criminals, with the ultimate goal to release that person back into society as a reformed individual. third, the threat of prison is intended to deter other people from committing similar crimes. and finally, prison is indeed a form of punishment.

the death penalty, on the other hand, serves absolutely no rehabilitative goals. instead, it is simply punishment. some might argue that the death penalty serves as a deterrent, but i think that people who kill will do so no matter whether the punishment is death or life in prison.

so for the most part, i think that the death penalty is simply a form of punishment. why not just lock someone up in prison for life without the possibility of parole? that would serve to protect society, without imposing what i believe to be a barbaric form of retribution...

The difference between killing and murder is not semantics. Legal systems have acknowledged this difference over history and hand out differing levels of punishment based on this difference. That is why we have degrees of murder and manslaughter in our penal code.

you are correct in saying that our legal system imposes different punishments based on whether one has committed murder or manslaughter. however, the most severe punishments are imposed on those who kill another person with premediation, deliberation, and calculation. (as opposed to someone who "accidentally" kills another person due to driving under the influence of alcohol.) it seems to me that those imposing the death penalty are doing the exact same thing- acting with premeditation, deliberation, calculation. granted, many people believe that those imposing the death penalty are justified in their actions- but i don't.

 

[BVS]

Capital punishment is not premeditated, but the result of extensive due process through the legal system. A significant difference.

The process of which we designed the methods, the process of the legal system is all premeditated.

Capital punishment is not done with malice. With your suggestion, any form of punishment at the hands of a judicial system is malice.

Well this one is arguable I admit. A speeding ticket is not done out of malice, it's done for the safety of others. Prison sentences are designed to make the streets safer. There is no malice here. But to take a step beyond making the streets safer to a "you deserve death" I see as coming with malice. Because a life sentence would make this country safer. We don't use an eye for an eye method for any other form of punishment except with capital punishment.

The difference between killing and murder is not semantics. Legal systems have acknowledged this difference over history and hand out differing levels of punishment based on this difference. That is why we have degrees of murder and manslaughter in our penal code.

Yes which are all designed by man.

So the killing of homosexuals by some societies by law, isn't murder?