|
Post by V on Jan 16, 2004 17:01:15 GMT -6
I have to do a debate in my class on the 1976 case of Gregg Vs Georgia. My group and I are on Georgias side I was hoping if I could get some help on this subject I knoe that gregg robbed and killed to men and My team has to argue yes to the death penalty. Does anyone have any suggestions on opening and closing arguments or rebuttles? I would really appreciat it.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jan 17, 2004 20:54:12 GMT -6
Point out that it is the duty of the state to provide justice to all its citizens. The blood of the victims cries out for justice from the grave. Only by executing the murderers can the state even approach justice for the victims.
|
|
|
Post by V on Jan 18, 2004 1:51:10 GMT -6
Thanks donnie for that advice on what to say. That can really help the argument.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jan 18, 2004 12:59:16 GMT -6
You are welcome. Here is some additional information that may help. Unfortunately, couldn't find the Kerby Anderson commentary below on his website: www.probe.org/docs/cap-pun.htmlBut the information is still valuable. The question that Mr. Anderson refers to is ,"What about the commandment that says, 'Thou shalt not kill' " Kerby Anderson answers this objection in one of his Probe essays:
First, we must understand the context of this verse. The verb used in Exodus 20:13 is best translated "to murder." It is used 49 times in the Old Testament, and it is always used to describe premeditated murder. It is never used of animals, God, angels, or enemies in battle. So the commandment is not teaching that all killing is wrong; it is teaching that murder is wrong. Second, the penalty for breaking the commandment was death (Exodus 21:12; Numbers 35:16-21). We can conclude therefore that when the government took the life of a murderer, the government was not itself guilty of murder. Opponents of capital punishment who accuse the government of committing murder by implementing the death penalty fail to see the irony of using Exodus 20 to define murder but ignoring Exodus 21, which specifically teaches that government is to punish the murderer.
So, the majority of Christians who support the death penalty are less likely than the general public to equate the killing of an innocent with the killing of criminal, and there is a Biblical basis for their opinion.
Charles Colson, a former federal prisoner and probably the Christian most would seek out for thoughtful insights about the American criminal justice system, changed his position on capital punishment after years of opposing it. Colson wrote:
Justice in God's eyes requires that the response to an offense - whether against God or against humanity - be proportionate. …I've come to see capital punishment as an essential element of justice. On the whole, the full range of biblical data weighs in its favor. Society should not execute capital offenders merely for the sake of revenge, rather to balance the scales of moral justice which have been disturbed.
Thanks donnie for that advice on what to say. That can really help the argument.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2004 21:58:03 GMT -6
I must say, that i do not know any Christian who supports DP. Whilst I do not dispute what the Old Law says on this matter, it is to my knowledge reasonably clear what the New Law says: Certainly Jesus said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone". The only one there of course without sin was Jesus. Apologist's for DP would argue that governments are the will of God and we must obey, because it is God's will. This needs to be taken with a pinch of salt - you can read further in Bertrand Russell's essays on scepticism - then you will get the general idea. I would like to point out that in those days emperor worship was required by law and many Christians died refusing to do this. Ergo if a law passed by man is incompatible with Christianity, we are required to oppose it. Jesus also passes an extremely important warning to us all. The word used means more condemnation than judgment, but i will translate it literally using judge! This warning is normally quoted as a command, but it is not as you will see:
"judge (condemn) not lest you be judged. For in that judgment that you judge, so you shall be judged."
We have a choice to condemn or not. If we judged by the Old Law's standards, then we ourselves will be judged under the Old Law. Jesus gave us the New Law and we must abide by it if we are to be judged under it.
When we look at sin - the most serious part about it is not causing harm to others. The most serious part about sin is that it separates us from God. All sin does this and so there are no degrees of wrong doing. God hates all sin because it separates us from him. So a murder is just as hateful and harmful as a theft.
Jesus himself "bore our sins in his body on the tree". He was not selective as to which sins he would take on board or whose sins he would take. The promise of life is for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jan 22, 2004 5:52:45 GMT -6
That was a lot of words to say nothing. You failed to come to the obvious conclusion of all that your wrote. That conclusion is, if your argument is valid, that there can be no punishment by society for any crimes that involve sin. Of course it would look a bit silly to punish crimes that don't involve sin while not punishing crimes that do involve sin. So the only logical outcome would be to abolish police, all criminal courts and self-defense. Jesus did abolish the DP for adultery, but He did so in a way that left it in place for murder. In fact the whole point of the stone casting story was how clever Jesus was in stopping a lynching without speaking against the DP law. That is, if the story actually happened. It is only in one scripture and some biblical scholars are skeptical about its origin and accuracy. It really doesn't make much sense. Why would people who didn't believe in Jesus care about his comment on "those without sin". The law had been practiced for centuries and that wasn't in the law. Most of those in favor of the DP also fully comply with the rules of judgement. For example, if I murder, I agree that I should be promptly executed. In addition, I would not provide any arguments in mitigation. That means I would accept a much more harsh judgement than is ever imposed for murder with no aggravating factors. In Romans, Saint Paul was quite clear on his support for the DP, even for crimes less severe than murder. Did that make him an "apologist" for the DP? In reality there are almost no apologists for the DP for murder. That is because there is nothing to apologize for. But deviously using the words of Jesus to circumvent God's mandate might be something that needs an apology. I must say, that i do not know any Christian who supports DP. Whilst I do not dispute what the Old Law says on this matter, it is to my knowledge reasonably clear what the New Law says: Certainly Jesus said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone". The only one there of course without sin was Jesus. Apologist's for DP would argue that governments are the will of God and we must obey, because it is God's will. This needs to be taken with a pinch of salt - you can read further in Bertrand Russell's essays on scepticism - then you will get the general idea. I would like to point out that in those days emperor worship was required by law and many Christians died refusing to do this. Ergo if a law passed by man is incompatible with Christianity, we are required to oppose it. Jesus also passes an extremely important warning to us all. The word used means more condemnation than judgment, but i will translate it literally using judge! This warning is normally quoted as a command, but it is not as you will see: "judge (condemn) not lest you be judged. For in that judgment that you judge, so you shall be judged." We have a choice to condemn or not. If we judged by the Old Law's standards, then we ourselves will be judged under the Old Law. Jesus gave us the New Law and we must abide by it if we are to be judged under it. When we look at sin - the most serious part about it is not causing harm to others. The most serious part about sin is that it separates us from God. All sin does this and so there are no degrees of wrong doing. God hates all sin because it separates us from him. So a murder is just as hateful and harmful as a theft. Jesus himself "bore our sins in his body on the tree". He was not selective as to which sins he would take on board or whose sins he would take. The promise of life is for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jan 22, 2004 11:43:48 GMT -6
Excellant point in support of the DP. As you point out, executing the murderer would be no different from fining the murderer ten cents. But subjecting the murderer to execution may save his soul. Because of their impending death many murderers repent of all their sins and allow Jesus to save their souls. You need to see the anti-DP propaganda movie Dead Man Walking to appreciate the degree of denial that some murderers maintain until they are almost dead. Although the movie is fundamentally dishonest in its bias against the DP, the justice and mercy of the DP cannot be covered up. When we look at sin - the most serious part about it is not causing harm to others. The most serious part about sin is that it separates us from God. All sin does this and so there are no degrees of wrong doing. God hates all sin because it separates us from him. So a murder is just as hateful and harmful as a theft.
|
|
|
Post by liane on Feb 3, 2004 5:56:02 GMT -6
we are doin a skool debate on thursday my veiw of the death penalty is although killing the criminal may bring justice to the family in some way , it wont bring thier loved ones back. also they hate this person because they took the victims life into thier own hands and decided if they should live or die and they think hes 'not right" for doin this and is a bad person but if you think about you u r taking thier life into your hands and not giving them a chioce does that make you "not right" and a bad person? ?
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Feb 3, 2004 22:14:33 GMT -6
You seem to have forgotten who made the initial choice to start the process. The murderer was given a choice not only about his own life, but about the life of another. The murderer decided to kill somebody for no reason or because he wanted to rape somebody, eat somebody, torture somebody, steal something or just get a thrill. But the murderer made that choice, knowing that there was a tiny chance that he might be executed. Some potential murderers think about the possibility of being executed and decide not to murder. All potential murderers have that option. The victim has no options, no choices. The victim has her life taken without being able to do anything about it. The victims family and society as a whole is presented with the murderer's choice without having any input in the process. Then after the murderer has done what he wanted to do for whatever reason, the murderer gets multiple chances to present reasons why he should not have face justice for his choice. There is never justice for the victim when a murderer is execucted for even the least brutal murders, even if the murderer were to be promptly exeucted. The murderer wanted to kill and the victim wanted to live. The murderer got what he wanted and the victim did not. That is a basic injustice that cannot be remedied. we are doin a skool debate on thursday my veiw of the death penalty is although killing the criminal may bring justice to the family in some way , it wont bring thier loved ones back. also they hate this person because they took the victims life into thier own hands and decided if they should live or die and they think hes 'not right" for doin this and is a bad person but if you think about you u r taking thier life into your hands and not giving them a chioce does that make you "not right" and a bad person? ?
|
|