|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
In another thread, someone accused me of being inconsistent, with my commentary about rights being inherent to the individual, not provided by, enumerated by, or dependent upon government or legislation.
When I said that a person CAN be deprived of life by a jury, I was accused of being totally inconsistent about individual rights.
So, this is to debate that point.
If Greek One has the guts to play the buffoon again, that is. Says I'm just too dumb and silly to win such a debate.
Well, show us your fantastic intellect, then.
Why are you getting so mad for?
We were discussing the inalienable rights of man and what the government should and shouldn't be able to do. That's a fair topics for anyone who believes in liberty and freedom... and it's been discussed for more than a few hundred years now.
I never called you either dumb or silly... but all of a sudden I am a 'buffoon'' and a moron' Can't topics be discussed with so much acrimony? I'm a 40 year old with a wife, kid, a mortgage and a total of $4.35 in Adsense revenue for the year... i have enough acrimony.
Discussion is fine, have no desire to 'debate' anything... let alone if its a viscous war of words. Yuo win dude, whatever you say
No, you accused me very indecently, of something I did NOT do. I am defending my integrity, the one thing I value above all others. I asked you very simply if you wanted to debate the matter or just pontificate. You chose the latter, and did so very disagreeably, and then tried to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.
If i accused you of something that you did not do, then please feel free to say "But Greek One, your wrong.. show me when I did that"
I've been wrong before, I can take being wrong again
You have your c hance to prove yourself. Answer the question.
lol... dude.. i don't want to 'prove' anything, I was just trying to have a conversation lol
You were having a "conversation" by saying this?????
"there is no need for a debate... you are very clearly against the government committing the 'crime' of taxing its citizens, but not against it establishing laws and procedures to murder them in certain circumstances.
The any rationalization for your hypocrisy and inconsistency is just that... rationalization.."
No, that's no "conversation", that's an accusation, a false one, coupled with a very, very big insult.
Certainly, it's a fair topic. That's why I asked if you were up to debating it, rather just unloading a bunch of tripe at me.
I've written a "hub" about my opinion on the death penalty.
I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO READ IT!
I'm Just offering my opinion by referencing it: :
If you should, just happen to read it, pls leave a comment. TY
I said: "Yes, I do believe that under certain circumstances, individuals, by their choice of crimes against others, give up their rights, and that they can be rescinded, not by the government, but only by a unanimous jury of their peers."
And you said:
Your consistency of approach was admirable (although mostly disagreeable) up to here.
I must admit that it is surprisingly painful to see a champion of the inalienable, God-given rights of man, especially the right to life, willingly give up to the state the right to take away one of a person's most important possessions.
Evidently a people in a free and democratic society do not have the right, through their elected representatives, to establish programs to help one another.... but they can create a big bad government which can set up a court system and laws which will take away the God-given right to life."
Please note your first falsehood. I clearly, very clearly said "not by government but by a jury of your peers".
And then you accused me of saying precisely the opposite.
"I must admit that it is surprisingly painful to see a champion of the inalienable, God-given rights of man, especially the right to life, willingly give up to the state the right to take away one of a person's most important possessions."
Please note, I didn't give the decision to the state. I gave it to a jury of your peers, who had to be unanimous. BTW, that's the Constution, not actually my doing. I'm just pointing out that your intellectual consistency is nil.
Ok - ok - all government is bad, Obama is evil - a socialist, a Kenyan national. States rights trump the Fed, the Articles of Confederation are where it's at - public hanging after a guilty verdict would be cheap and great entertainment.. Ok.. we all agree.... Next rant please...
So the question is: Does a jury have the right to rescind an individual's rights?
Then what's your argument? I said your right to life can be rescinded by a jury of your peers. The Constitution definitely agrees, as it states clearly that your right to life, liberty and property cannot be taken without a trial by a jury of your peers.
Where am I even "radical" in saying this?
I never called you a 'radical'
My point is this. Your position if I am not mistaken is that we all have certain rights that we are born with. Not 'benefits', not 'cool things that the government lets us have', not 'gifts that are loaned to us by government.. but INALIENABLE RIGHTS.
Accordingly, you seem to consistently condemn government whenever elected officials seek to establish social programs they believe in the public good as an infringement upon these rights.
Yet when it comes to capital punishment, all of a sudden, the legislative branch can pass laws allowing for the murder of citizens under certain circumstances, and the judiciary can set up trials that will prosecute and condemn people to death.It doesn't matter if the verdict is by jury of peers.. im not arguing whether the Constitution allows it... the point is an individuals God-given INALIENABLE right to life is being taken away.
you agreed, without reservation, that your "inalienable right" to liberty can be taken by a jury of your peers. Seems you're wholly inconsistent here.
Can a jury take your rights or not? If so, then agreeing with that concept is not contradictory in any fashion.
Seems then, your whole argument is that life is separate from liberty and all the other things you're deprived of when convicted of a crime. Unless you have some seriously good argument, I see no reason to think it is. I note that death sentences are rare as hen's teeth at a coyote convention, being reserved for those people who are such a threat to society that preservation of other people's lives or liberty calls for their removal from the living.
I do indeed think that a jury/state does have the legal right to take away the liberty of someone, because, as the old saying goes, the right of someone to wave their fist stops where my nose begins. We have a right to protect ourselves.
Similarly, if what you said was indeed the case, that the death sentence was reserved for those people who are such a threat to society that it is required to preserve other people's lives or liberty, then yes, a case can be made that we do have the right to protect ourselves via capital punishment.
However, although the taking of one's freedoms and liberty (through incarceration) can be justified on the basis of protecting our rights from those may violate them, with the ability to pass TRUE life sentences (ie life sentences with no chance of parole), the protection of society can't be used as justification for a jury/the state or whomever, ending someone God-given right to life.
That's just your opinion. That's how you want it to be. Fine.
Your reaction, your lying about me and what I think... that was all unjustifed, then, wasn't it?
If you agree that a jury can take someone's rights, then taking those rights is taking those rights, once you don't have them, you don't have them. The basis for your argument is unsound, however. But no state can take anyone's right to life. It has to be decided by a JURY, not the state.
You objected to the idea that a jury can take your right to life. Yet, you agreed wholly that a jury can take your rights. Your right to life is in reality, no different and not separate any more than your right to vote or carry a gun or travel or any of those other rights which are rescinded upon conviction by a jury.
Believing that a jury can legitimately remove your right to live is no way a conflict with believing in one's "inalienable" rights. You agreed that those "inalienable" rights can and should be rescinded by a jury. You are the one who is inconsistent.... Not me. Nor does my belief in the correctness of the death penalty in any way conflict with the notion of God given rights and the limitations of government.
It is you who is inconsistent in argument.
weholdthesetruth: before you Quit for the night I left you a message on AnnCee thread Obama AWOL, I'll wait a while for your reply. If you already replied disregard this comment
A person's inalienable freedom and liberty..to life, or whatever, does not extend to the ability to violate the rights of others.
The ability of a court system to deprive a citizen of their liberties, life or whatever lies solely in, and is limited by, the protection of the rights of others.
I agree that someones right to life is in reality, no different than their other rights. The point is that since we can protect the rights of others by incarcerating people who would violate the rights of others, there is no justification for capital punishment and the taking of someone's life. Imprisonment and the suspension of a person's other rights is sufficient protection.. and the law is only justified in limiting a person's freedom to the extent it is necessary to do so. It is not acceptable to say that since we are justified to limit some of a person's liberties for our protection, we are justified to take all their rights away, even if our protection is not at risk.
I stand beside Greek One on this topic of Capital Punishment
Capital Punishment only shows us to kill some to prove to us that killing is wrong -is hypocritical. It has proven worldwide that countries with Capital Punishment have the higher murder rate than the Countries who do not have Capital Punishment.
Twist any way you want it is not religious (thou shall not kill) or non religion ethical or moral and in addition Capital Punishment has not proven to work
This is vapid. If you take someone's rights, you take ALL their rights. There is no middle ground. Either your rights are intact, or they aren't. Once it becomes up to a jury to decide if someone's rights are to be taken, that person no longer owns ANY right, period, if any rights are taken. Liberty is the ability to make your own decisions, and once that's taken, you have no rights. None. Zilch. Zip. You are no longer a sovereign person, you have been judged unworthy of your rights and they have been stripped from you.
That's why our constitution places limitations on how prisoners are treated. Not because these people have rights, but because they DO NOT, and it is there as a restraint on the behavior of society.
A jury can pass a verdict, but they are only justified in constraining someone's liberty to the extent which is required to prevent them from harming others. That should be the start and the end of their authority. Anything in excess is an unjust abuse of someone's rights.
Similarly, freedom of movement of an incarcerated does not necessarily negate their freedom of thought, or religion... or that of life.
When someone else has the power to say what you may and may not do... You no longer have ANY rights. You have only those things that power deems to grant you.
You seem to not understand this.
A legal entity with sufficient power can, in all practical terms, do to me whatever it wishes without any regard to my rights.... but that doesn't make their actions legitimate.
The only rights that I should be prevented from exercising legitimately and justifiably are those that if exercised, could harm others.
You're still missing the point. Once you have been found guilty of a crime, one that a jury finds you guilty of, you simply no longer have any rights.
You seem to confuse this with the idea that we, as people, CHOOSE not to take people's lives for trivial things. This is a matter of judgement by a society, not rights.
That is not a matter of whether the punishment of taking your life is legit or not. So far, you have not been able to make any case that it is not legit to remove someone's life.
Arguing about what cases that should be done for is not the subject, nor even relevant.
I disagree that a person has no rights once they are convicted.
The constraining of someone's natural rights are only legitimate to the extent that such constraints serve to protect the rights of others.
The death penalty is not legitimate since it is not necessary to protect the rights of others
If we seem not to understand, that's because you're talking nonsense.
Sigh... Look, I've tried. You don't understand what a "right" is, and why you can't have your rights decided by someone else. They aren't rights, once that happens, they're privileges.
If you don't understand the reality of rights, then you can't grasp any of the argument, and that's become obvious.
If you're going to talk about rights, at least TRY to understand the basis of what you're talking about.
I could reply but it wont get us anywhere, and as I there is a definite tone of condescension creeping in to the conversation, there really isn't anything to gain.
At any rate, thanks for the discussion. It was clear that you were very offend by something I wrote the other day, and that was not my intention.
When Capital Punishment has proven it kills more people than it protects. That means it harms the rights of more people wail it kills more people. Murder will never stop murder, it only increases murder, proven in America and worldwide and solves nothing
"If you take someone's rights, you take ALL their rights. There is no middle ground."
This is one of the silliest assertions I've seen here.
When you lose your driver's license (your right to drive a car) you do not automatically lose your right to free speech, peaceable assembly, the right to an attorney when accused of a crime, your right to property (you can own a car; you just can't drive it).
These silliest assertions of no Capital Punishment already has proven a better method in the USA and Worldwide for a much longer time.
Yes, there are always middle grounds or the Nazi or Christians would of taken over the whole world until the last man drops dead.
You would lose more than your driver license if you intended and did kill someone with your car and your freedom would becomes extremely limited in jail.
"You would lose more than your driver license if you intended and did kill someone with your car and your freedom would becomes extremely limited in jail."
Absolutely, but that doesn't mean that all of your rights have been taken away. That's my point.
And for lesser crimes, lesser restrictions on rights are imposed. Someone might get punished with probation, which means they can't leave a certain area and have to check in with the police every so often. They can do everything that they used to be able to do, but they can only do it within a certain area. That's hardly having all of one's rights taken away.
Is the death penalty legitimate?
In a civilized society then there would be no need for it to exist. However, since society, as a whole, isn't civilized, then it is needed to prevent a single individual from doing more damage to society than necessary.
If this is supposed to be an argument whether or not the right to life can be taken away from an individual by government, either state or federal, then the answer is yes.
Any individual who causes too much damage to society in an overall view, then forfeits their individual right through their own actions.
The survival of the human species versus that of one life is what is weighed. In the best interests of humanity(society), then that individual is to be dealt with severely.
It would be no different if the person killed two people or one thousand people, the death penalty would apply. The problem is that the death penalty isn't applied properly, nor is it used as it should be. It has been left up to the discretion of the A.D.A or D.A. of the specific place where the individual is tried and whether or not it is in fact a Law in said State. If it is tried in a Federal Court, then it can be applied regardless of what State it occurred.
I have posted heaps of hubbs on this topic for those that want to read more than 140 characters
Well now, let's see....you have the right to kill someone with a gun--sanctioned by the gvt, you have the right to kill someone with a lethal injection--ordered by the gvt, you have a right to invade Iraq-- perpetrated by the gvt,which resulted in huge numbers of death, but you have a problem with abortion--desired by an individual.
I would say it is you who are against individual liberty. No joke.
What is truly sad is that LMC can't differentiate between murderers / enemies of our nation and defenseless unborn children who have harmed no one.
A child is nobody's enemy (excepting when some despot has given them an AK47 and forced them to fight)so nobody should be killing them, especially not doctors who are supposedly committed to saving life.
So, when a child threatens somebody, we possibly have the right to kill it in extreme circumstances, but not perhaps for lifestyle choice reasons.
Or is that somehow now permissible?
Children have nothing to do with politics and startings wars. They are killed everyday in them.
They are "collateral damage".
Children get shot by gun-fire everyday, whether they be 5 or 16. Many neighborhoods in America are worse war zones than Afghanistan or Iraq.
People say Oh well--that's the price of freedom. I still demand my right to a gun.
Yet, whan a woman wants to end a pregnancy, you demonize her and tell her she has no right to do so.
Therefore, I say people are very selective in whom they deem worthy of rights.
Gun rights...go right ahead!
War....go right ahead.....USA USA USA
Abortion....not so much.
Trifle emotional if you don't mind me saying, abortion is perfectly legal in your society so why would you accuse people of demonizing women for having one?
Now freedom of speech (also perfectly legal) allows those who view abortion as wrong to express that opinion as well, albeit they are legally restricted from doing more than protest abortion, and I grant you that many of those who protest abortion will do so in a graphic manner, which may be viewed by those who support abortion as demonizing those women who have abortions.
But that is a personal perception by those people, or maybe a defense against subliminal instinct, concerning the killing of progeny, who is to say?
Certainly many women I have spoken with have regretted their abortions in hindsight, and needed to deal with those feelings before they could resume a normal life.
But something that is legal is legal.
Yet it still denies all rights to an unborn child in favor of the mother who makes a lifestyle choice to kill her progeny.
Lifestyle choices are hardly comparable to children being killed in wars and accounted as collateral damage, wars kill people, and personally I am against all killing, legal or not.
As for your gun law rant, most killing is done by illegal guns, and in any case I live in a country where personal gun ownership is denied its citizens.
Of course the criminals still have guns, but mainly they seem to use cleavers to kill their enemies.
Maybe we should ban meat cleavers?
Where did you see the word ban in my "rant"?
Typical-- adding things that aren't there, to act like I'm trying to take something away from you.
And I would say that bombing abortion clinics, stalking doctors and patients, threatening them and their families, and walking into a church and shooting someone point blank in the head are a little more than "protesting"...and the protesting is bad enough!
It's not imagined that women are demonized.....sl*t, c*nt, baby-killer---that's demonizing for real.
And said with a look and tone that would kill.
That is as far away from Christ-like as I can imagine. It is hate...pure, un-adulterated hate. And until you've felt it, you won't understand.
You are right, you did not say ban, apologies, what you did write gave me the impression you would ban guns.
I would also say that bombing abortion clinics, stalking doctors and patients, threatening them and their families, and walking into a church and shooting someone point blank in the head are a little more than "protesting", indeed they are all illegal acts and people get jail time when they do them.
"sl*t, c*nt, baby-killer---that's demonizing for real."
Actually it's just foul language by ignorant people who should be ignored.
It definitely has NO part in calling itself Christ like or even Christian.
Anybody who needs to resort to such language has a low mentality and is short of social skills, they certainly do not warrant serious consideration, however, as I said earlier, the women who may hear these insults are possibly subconsciously aware that what they are about to do is wrong, they certainly seem to realize it later when it is too late, so without condoning these ignorant actions, maybe it does raise a point of discussion.
Perhaps if women wanting to abort were given equal realistic information about what they intended, from both sides, they may reconsider their intended action.
This is an emotive issue, and (unfortunately) one I have first hand experience of from many angles, and yes I do have a hub on it, indeed it was (I think) the first hub I produced.
I am NOT the enemy, nor attacking you, but when we make statements that are rash, we spread the deception and further define the battle lines, we need to stop the battles to stop the wars.
"Perhaps if women wanting to abort were given equal realistic information about what they intended, from both sides, they may reconsider their intended action."
I can agree with that,but I think forcing them to watch is going to further anguish an already anguishing situation. And I give them credit for already knowing what it is all about.
And,if you are going to go that route, then I think gun-owners should have to watch a video about what happens to a person when you shoot them before you buy a gun. It's not like TV!!! It's REAL.
And you can include on the video,doctors at emergency centers in big cities, where they see gun-shot victims daily...little kids, and teenagers!
Veterans for Peace is working on the war end of it...
And then there's the question.....just what are you doing to help them once they are here? Or is that NOT your business? Making them HAVE the baby seems to be!!
You want that power over a woman, then you just let her and the kid rot.
I think it's YOUR side that has some thinking to do too.
--Like children killed in war, and children killed by gun-shot every day.
What is your difference?
Once they are here, they don't matter?
You still maintain the right to have guns and war, which kill innocents all the time....you are selective in who has rights.
No, LMC just lies. That's all.
Well now, let's see....you have the right to kill someone with a gun--sanctioned by the gvt,
you have the right to kill someone with a lethal injection--ordered by the gvt,
you have a right to invade Iraq-- perpetrated by the gvt,
So twisted and irrational it isn't even relevant. These kind of delusional ravings don't qualify as an argument.
which resulted in huge numbers of death, but you have a problem with abortion--desired by an individual.
Seems to prefer that Saddam continue his endless killing and deprivation of his people. All totally bind, thoughtless, and idiotic. An insult to any intelligent person, as if we're all so stupid we can't see through the idiocy, and so talks to us like we're imbeciles, using a patently stupid and demeaning lack of reason.
Your posts just RADIATE love. ahahahaha.
God is love.
Ergo:.........try and finish the rest.
My posts reflect reality. You just keep getting uglier and uglier in your demented leftist rage.
Nobody in my family or relative that I know of, has any criminal record or committed suicide or murder or even been a war trooper. My simple laws in my relationship circle is to be honest and do not harm self or other.
When it come to discussion over the topic or website about guns, war troops and Capital punishment. I almost get called every negative thing under the Sun.
Most Americans do not believe that the death penalty is a deterrent to murder. Most American does not want war. Most U.S. police chiefs do not believe that the death penalty significantly reduces the numbers of murders. "In no state has the number of murders diminished after legalizing the death penalty."
Yet the USA has 25 % of the world’s prison. If people want capital punishment seriously, drag back with your cold dead hands and vote Bush back. Because from the Guinness Book of World Records, 2002: Bush the Governor of Texas had the most capital punishment executions, not to mention the cost of ongoing Iraq war next to world war 2. Also American lead in murder and war record kills also.
Please, I ask you American in the area of violence and murder policy. Is this true democracy and is it working for you?
I have one solution if you really care to hear
Killing criminals makes the criminally inclined upright citizen feel better.
Always dump the bad stuff on someone else.
The question is not whether the death penalty is effective (and it could be argued it was as the murderer kills no more) but whether it is legitimate.
In a society where laws are made, consensus should rule as to the application of those laws, for a law can be broken yet remain unpunished if the consensus of a jury decides to issue a not guilty plea.
The law in itself is a guideline, not an absolute, and so, for instance, if I killed a man who was well known as an abuser and molester, the jury, if aware of that knowledge CANNOT be ordered to find me guilty, the judge may recommend it, but the consensus can override his judgement.
Now is that legitimate?
Yes, and no.
In the increasingly subjective world we live in, the argument can be made that nobody has the right to interfere with anyone else's right to do as they wish.
This admittedly takes the subjectivity and rights issue to the limit, but it is a limit that could be reached unless we determine previously where the limit should be set that stops this subjectivity ruling over all.
So we either have rules, or we do not, and if we do not, then anybody is entitled to kill whoever they like, and be killed by whoever decides to do so.
Whose rules do we apply? and what gives them the right to apply those rules.
It sounds good to say democracy declares where the line is drawn, however democracy is not in force everywhere and some countries are majority ruled by theocracy, others by atheists, or communists....despots, dictators..... ruling elites or military oppressors.
The bible tells us that God decrees that all murderers shall be put to death.
So please tell me who has the right to decide who lives and who dies?
"The question is not whether the death penalty is effective (and it could be argued it was as the murderer kills no more) but whether it is legitimate."
This assumes that the person executed was in fact guilty of the crime he was convicted of. We've seen many cases of convicted murderers exonerated by DNA evidence. According to the Innocence Project, there have been 267 post-conviction DNA exonerations in United States history.
That's two hundred and sixty-seven cases--that we know about!--in which an innocent person has been convicted, served time, and in some cases, was in danger of being executed for a crime they did not commit.
And in the meantime, the actual murderer is still out there, not being brought to justice. I'm not going to be comfortable with the death penalty until a whole lot of problems in our court system are fixed.
"The bible tells us that God decrees that all murderers shall be put to death."
So the hell what? The Bible is not the governing document of the United States.
That doesn't answer the question at all. You're arguing about the accuracy of a jury, not answering the question.
You see, if you undermine the jury system, then you basically call any ability to punish... to a halt. If the jury system is so bad, so horrible, then there is no means of convicting criminals, and thus, no means of enforcing law, and we have anarchy.
Is that your goal? That seems to be your purpose and to what your argument is pointed.
"If the jury system is so bad, so horrible, then there is no means of convicting criminals, and thus, no means of enforcing law, and we have anarchy.
Is that your goal? That seems to be your purpose and to what your argument is pointed."
Here's the point: If you lock someone up falsely, you can let them back out again when you discover your mistake. If you execute someone falsely, you can't bring them back to life. Granted, you can't give them back the time they spent falsely imprisoned, but you can restore their liberty. You can't restore life.
Nice strawman, but it doesn't hold up.
Again, we are confusing the issue, put a murderer to death and you get no more murders, now the fact that the judicial system may be deficient in identifying the correct person as the murderer is shameful, and indeed needs correction, and possibly the fact that we now have DNA 'proof' of guilt or innocence could be incorporated into this, as most murders are not premeditated and therefore it is reasonable to expect that some DNA evidence would be present at a crime scene, indeed unless you went out to kill properly dressed to leave no evidence (i.e. in crime scene overalls) it would be nigh impossible NOT to leave a trace of DNA for detectives to find.
"The Bible is not the governing document of the United States"
Possibly not (and possibly part of the problem) but your laws were formed upon the basis of the bible, and your real problems have started since you entered into the wide subjective pathway, changing laws (away from biblical principals)to reflect the subjective liberal ethos that a small minority have inserted in your system.
I hear many American tell me that a murderer should be put to death because to keep them in jail for life, cost tax prayer too much money.
A solution for example can be like they did before the USA 1930s. Put prisoners to work making produce products for their keep. Only base on their good behavior they get a bit of freedom like - read a book or something like that.
What do you think?
I think it is inhumane to keep a human being imprisoned for life with no hope of release, and for murder that needs to be the solution if you are not going to put them to death, and ensure that they will not murder again.
But we need to differentiate between levels of murderer.
Murder is unlawful killing, but again in our society that is a subjective matter, and (for instance) had I killed Adolf Hitler in 1935 I would have been a murderer in any respect, after 1939 I would have been a hero in the free world and yet still a murderer in Germany, so there are degrees of unlawful killing, for in 1939 I would be acting lawfully on the command of my nation, yet unlawfully according to German law.
So (for instance) the woman who discovers her husband raping their daughter and kills him, is unlikely to kill again, whereas the junkie needing cash to buy a fix, who kills someone, even by accident, is just as likely to kill again, unless they find sobriety and a new life in jail.... so who decides on who should live and who should die? - my original question and still unanswered.
This subject is so multi faceted that maybe I will do a hub on it, for to date every time I pose a question, someone asks another, rather than answering the first.
To answer yours, yes using criminals for slave labor can prove effective, but murderers (and rapists and other proven irredeemable folk)are beyond that, slave labor should be restricted to those who will one day be re-integrated into society, and used as a penalty that will discourage them returning to their criminology, for those who can never be released or reformed, death is the more humane option.
I give a lot of solution to American and most of them just get ignore wail the vicious circle continues and murder worsen by Capital punishment.
Is it Christ like or even Christian like to have Capital Punishment, If seem Jesus was pro life and quoted – the one who has not sin, cast the first stone. OT had a HELL stone throwing killing over a lot of stupid things. Being spiritual non religious I find Capital Punishment, unethical and proven not to work,
Christ came to fulfill the law, not abolish it, and God requires that murder is punished by death.
Genesis 9:5-6 (Amplified Bible)
And surely for your lifeblood I will require an accounting; from every beast I will require it; and from man, from every man [who spills another's lifeblood] I will require a reckoning.
Whoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God He made man.
Christ never did away with the commandments of God, He simply annulled the commandments of men, which had been added to Gods commands.
You mean you still apply OT laws to man's laws today?
What part of Thou shall not kill, do you do not understand in the up dated laws NT? IT only means you can kill an animal for food
Which part of:
Christ never did away with the commandments of God, He simply annulled the commandments of men, which had been added to Gods commands.
Did you not understand?
Matthew 5:20-22 (Amplified Bible)
For I tell you, unless your righteousness (your uprightness and your right standing with God) is more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
You have heard that it was said to the men of old, You shall not kill, and whoever kills shall be liable to and unable to escape the punishment imposed by the court.
But I say to you that everyone who continues to be angry with his brother or harbors malice (enmity of heart) against him shall be liable to and unable to escape the punishment imposed by the court; and whoever speaks contemptuously and insultingly to his brother shall be liable to and unable to escape the punishment imposed by the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, You cursed fool! [You empty-headed idiot!] shall be liable to and unable to escape the hell (Gehenna) of fire.
I would say that this rather reinforces, even takes us to a higher plain of understanding about 'Thou shalt not kill' which in any case was defined as 'unlawfully' kill, not a prohibition against killing.
I am not religious yet I often try putting myself in other people's shoes.
There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that Jesus believed in capital punishment. However, there are lots of other stoning offenses in the Bible (adultery, homosexual activity, and my favorite, disrespecting your parents) can you see these penalties for those offenses should be carried forward into modern society..
Saints; 4.4.8 Community of Christ ... Opponents of capital punishment argue that it has led to the execution of wrongfully convicted . Jesus stopped an execution. Should we accept Jesus' criterion for who should participate in an execution
"put a murderer to death and you get no more murders,"
Put an innocent man to death and you get at least one more murder, and no justice at all, since you stop looking for the actual murderer.
"the fact that the judicial system may be deficient in identifying the correct person as the murderer is shameful, and indeed needs correction,"
Exactly. When we can really say that convicted = guilty, without fear that we'll be proven wrong, without fear that innocent poor or minorities get railroaded while guilty rich/majorities get acquitted, then maybe we can bring the death penalty back to the table. But as of now, the court system is too prejudiced against the poor and minorities, and the death penalty, when used, is unequally applied.
"but your laws were formed upon the basis of the bible,"
No, they weren't. Stop perpetuating this falsehood. Many conservatives like to use this falsehood (whether they genuinely believe it to be true or whether they're deliberately misrepresenting history) to make it seem good to enshrine theology in law. But it ain't so, no matter how many times you repeat it. If you repeat a lie often enough, some people may begin to believe it, but it will never become true.
"your real problems have started since you entered into the wide subjective pathway, changing laws (away from biblical principals)"
Heh, this is funny, this naive nostalgia for a golden age that never was. You're free to keep believing that everything was great back when everyone went to church on Sunday and we didn't have none of these un-Christian people asserting their rights if you want to, but it just. Wasn't. So.
Agreed, we need to get conclusive in finding murderers.
Also agreed, the law is lazy and prejudicial, the police look for the usual suspects and ill educated, black and hispanic young men from dysfunctional family's who have needed to join gangs just to survive their teen years are easy targets, plus the ethos is... they are guilty of something so what the heck.
But all of your replies are simply highlighting the problems that liberal thinking has created, and the topic was about whether the law for the death penalty was legitimate, and my stance remains the same, it is legitimate to put to death someone who kills unlawfully, but they must be judged according to the circumstances of the murder.
Whether it is practicable and fairly applied is a whole other topic.
So would you contend. that when your laws were charted, the Ten Commandments had no influence upon the men making those laws?
I accept that your laws are based in case law and precedent, (which is why a small vocal liberal minority can effect a change in the laws unreflective of the (soporific) majority desires) but all law has a basis, and as England had control of you at your establishment, I think it fair to say that British Law was your foundation, and British law is very biblically influenced.
Unfortunately in a relatively short period, you threw the baby out with the bathwater,
Nothing wrong with folk exerting their rights, that is what democracy thrives upon, it's when they demand that others lose their 'rights' that it goes sour, and BTW 'rights' are a misnomer, we have 'privileges' not rights, no matter what folk call them, our rights are privileges, for as long as some politician or lawyer can manage to get them suspended or eroded.
I actually think we are almost on the same page, but from different stances. I am not political in that I have not voted for about 30 years, and view all politicians as weasels not to be trusted, so I have no axes to grind, to me left or right, liberal or conservative, they all just want power and money, so they are all a waste of time.
I have posted a few well researched hubs on the topic for those that r interested
The idea of giving any government the power to kill people without recourse is one that makes me extremely uncomfortable.
Teach by example. A society that says it is okay to kill in certain circumstances, says to that society it is okay to kill.
Anyone can have what they see as a valid reason to take another's life.
I love America, but our justice system is f'd up. I'll provide a couple of real examples that I've personally known about:
1. A young "nobody" sells pot to an adult and gets jail time, boot camp, and 5 years of probation. Sell cocaine to a minor, have sex with her, and get her drunk, but be an important middle-aged member of the community, and never even have to go to court. This man was caught red-handed, yet the record of the arrest mysteriously vanished.
2. Kill someone and serve 7 years. Counterfit money and serve 20 years.
3. The man who molested my daughter when she was a child served only 6 months in the local jail, and it was his second offense.
What's the motto? Kill someone or molest a helpless child, but don't mess with the government's money. When it comes to crime and punishment, there are just too many variables - how good your lawyer is, who the judge is, and in many locales, who you are.
As for the death penalty, I'm against it. I fully support life imprisonment with no chance of parole, however. My view here isn't because I'm a liberal - I'm not. It's because I'm a Christian. I don't think I could ever kill a human being. If it meant protecting my family, I could shoot to immobolize the assailant and render him helpless, but I wouldn't want the shot to be fatal.
Well, I am with you on this on this topic of Capital punishment, on this thread most people would not'.
I may feel like killing anyone who harms my daughter at first, deep down I know this would make me a hypocrite. Killing never stops killing or harm and in the long run it only increases murder.
Yet, most American are with you habee on Capital Punishment
1. Americans do not believe that the death penalty is a deterrent to murder.
2. Most U.S. police chiefs do not believe that the death penalty significantly reduces the numbers of murders.
3."In no state has the number of murders diminished after legalizing the death penalty."
4. Most States in the USA do not have Capital Punishment
5.Worldwide countries without Capital Punishment have lower crime rates
"If it meant protecting my family, I could shoot to immobolize the assailant and render him helpless, but I wouldn't want the shot to be fatal."
Habee, I'm surprised at you. As someone who knows about firearms, you should know that there is no such thing as "shoot to wound."
If you shoot at someone, you'd best be prepared for them to die at your hands. 'Cos if you hit them, that's probably what will happen.
At the same time, I agree with everything else you said in that post.
As a person who knows about firearms, she knows where to shot someone so as to wound them.
No criminals has attack me or any member of my family, just some odd petty thief. If America attacks Canada, me and my family you see a high pile of American amputees that will really slow them down and make them think twice
Here is one example of what it means when you take women's choices away: Freedom? I don't think so. Laws to control and suppress our own lives!
Published Monday March 7, 2011
Heartache shared to help others
By Martha Stoddard
LINCOLN — Danielle Deaver would have stood on her head in a freezer if it could have saved her baby’s life.
But extreme measures wouldn’t have mattered for the Grand Island, Neb., woman and the child she carried last year.
That baby was doomed when Deaver’s water broke the day after Thanksgiving.
It was a new Nebraska abortion law, though, that turned an unbearable situation into one that Deaver, 34, and her husband, Robb, 40, called torturous.
Their baby was given less than a 10 percent chance of surviving delivery; less than a 2 percent chance of ever managing basic functions, like eating.
“The odds were awful,” Danielle Deaver said. “It just wasn’t there.”
But devastating as that blow had been, what followed turned out to be at least as excruciating.
The Deavers thought over the possibilities and made a decision. They didn’t want to continue putting their unborn baby through what they feared was agony, so they asked the doctors to induce labor early.
But they were soon told the Nebraska abortion law stood in their way.
Deaver finally went into labor on her own on Dec. 7. The baby, named Elizabeth, was born the next day at 3 p.m., weighing 1 pound, 10 ounces.
The Deavers took turns holding her while she gasped for air. But her undeveloped lungs could not inflate and no ventilator could have made a difference.
Elizabeth was pronounced dead at 3:15 p.m. The Deavers cremated her and had a family service.
“We should have been able to make this decision,” Danielle Deaver said. “This was not about abortion or politics or anything. This was about two parents being able to make an excruciating decision.”
Deaver was forced to risk her own health and endure mental anguish, while the fetus also had to suffer.
Dr. LeRoy Carhart, who runs the Abortion and Contraception Clinic of Bellevue, said he had predicted there would be cases such as the Deavers’ under the new law. He said he has had to refer other women out of state for later-term abortions.
Danielle Deaver said the law is too unyielding.
“The outcome of my pregnancy, that choice was made by God,” she said. “How to handle the end of my pregnancy, that choice should have been mine, and it wasn’t because of a law.”
I agree with Cagsil, we have taken this off topic, but I also agree with you in this case, the parents with medical advice and confirmation should have the right to over rule the law in such instances, even if it means getting a judge out of bed at 3am to make the ruling.
I suggest we continue in a new topic. in order not to subvert this topic, which is in itself a serious and needed discussion.
my opinion on the subject being worth only what an opinion is worth,... here we go,....
i'm sooooo pro-life that i piss of pro lifers,... i oppose abortion to be moraly wrong and not in the best interest of preserving man kind and our respective cultures,....i'm soo damn pro-life that i make no exception for rape or incest,... the only exception i accept is in the deffence of the mothers life,.... meaning that death would be certain and emminant,.... i oppose the death penalty not only because i believe it to be moraly wrong, but also because it apears to me to be very in-efficiant.
please excuse my poor spelling,...
by the time you pay for lawyers and the apeals proc. the added security and med costs,...... it costs more to execute someone in this country than it does to house them in maximum security for 40+ years.... look it up.... no, i will not post links,... google it like i did.
the jurry system is flawed because it consists of human beings who are ALL flawed,... subject to our human faults and failings,... thats why its the worst system out there,... until you compare it to everything else (paraphrasing churchill)
the man made jurry system makes mistakes, therefore we have the apeals proc.... and so on,..
....so inocent people go to prison, and inocent people sit on death row,... the idea that the state will kill someone at 5 minutes past midnight,... on my behalf,.... sickens me,.... the idea that even one of them might have been inocent of the crime for which they were executed terrifies me.
however, in the USA, capital punishment, like abortion is the law of the land,... and so,.... i propose,...
if you are going to kill the criminal, do so by public hanging, on the courthouse lawn, in the county in wich the crime occoured, and do it at 2pm on a sunday, televised manditorily,... all chanels.
the people of this nation,.... the good god fearing old testament quoting christian people of this country,... should have to see it.
and since god says its ok, he wont mind giving up his sunday afternoon to it.
it should not be done at midnight or just before dawn, it should be done in broad daylight,.... like were not ashamed or ambarassed,....yes?
i've never done anything in the dark of night i wanted the rest of the world to see,... been pruod of a few of those things but still didnt want an audience! ha!
so if you want capital punishment, lets do it propperly, and make sure you bring the kids,... we'll sell beer and pretzles.
They are not allowed to show actually death on TV only in fiction form, some death gets slid in. I am almost pro life with chicken and veal because if the public watched how they were killed and prepare, it would put most people off.
I have mix feeling about abortion, I would prefer the one child law like in China to lower abortion before being unloved by blood family.
I'm generally pro life too, when we show how all life is important and loved, thing like suicide deaths in which are greater than murder, wars and terrorist combined will decrease also.
Don't understand your gun stuff , yet your pro life make me a little surprised eight ball.
my "gun stuff" is based out of view of the gun as a tool, an instrument with wich i might acomplish something,... like a wrench,... i can bash a fellows head in with a wrench,.... man can metaphoricaly build an atom bomb with a wrench and a calculator,.... its mankinds intent that drives us,.... and that intent can enlighten or enslave us.
the cathys out there will understand when i say that intent is what your priest is interested in when you go to confesion.
the DA will be very interested in intent when he/she puts you on trial.... as will that flawed jurry of your suposed peers.
i agree that when most see how a chicken is dispatched in the factory setting it can turn you vegan in a hurry,.... myself included,... but i tend to eat what i kill as often as possible,.... and the lives of the animals that i take are greatly repected and apreciated,.... and certainly arent subjected to the suffering of the caged bird that hangs in a tyson cut plant.
far to many people are far too removed from thier food sources,... as evidenced by insane quotes that hit my in box every day asserting that some dumb california blond said we should kill animals, we should get our meet at the store like everyone else,.... wow.
i have a date wating on me at the local pub so i'm off the air till later,... enjoy the chat,... will pick it back up asap.
by Shil19786 years ago
Do You Support The Death Penalty?
by JR Scarbrough MFA3 years ago
Is abortion about women’s right or is it about the right to life?I get so mixed up in that debate, it would seem that the right to life outweighs any right of personal choice, but many see it much different. What is...
by Cat R6 years ago
Supporters say that some crimes deserve the Death Penalty and that we are spending too much money to keep prisoners comfortable in prisons. That there are too many people that don't have cable, a home, free education...
by RealityTalk4 years ago
Should Jodi Arias get the death penalty or life without parole?Jodi Arias has been found guilty of first degree murder and guilty of cruelty in the aggravation phase of her trial for the murder of her ex-boyfriend,...
by daskittlez695 years ago
Do you believe that Americans still have the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?
by Barefootfae5 years ago
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/25/m … r-freedom/I think he means more than soda.
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.