|
|
Post by middleofnowhere on Mar 11, 2006 0:01:04 GMT -6
Hi, I'm new to the boards. I'm 17and I live in California. I'm 100% pro death penalty and in my senior government class we are doing debates about current issues. We are going to be doing Capital Punishment and I have my view and ideas and I've also gotten some information off the internet. Does anyone have other things that I may be able to use to help back me up? Thanks!!
I should be posting around and stuff. This is an issue that I feel very strongly about and I like to see what you guys think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Mar 11, 2006 14:18:42 GMT -6
Does anyone have other things that I may be able to use to help back me up? The simple answer to this question is yes. But the problem is you ask about "other things". Other things cannot be provided unless we know what the things are that you already have. But here is a summary I developed as a starting point: The reason for having a death penalty today is to provide an approach to justice for the victims of murder. I use the phrase "an approach to justice" because even if a murderer were to be struck dead one second after the murder, that still would not provide justice for the victim and the victim's family. The murderer, even when executed, always comes out ahead. The murderer always gets what he wanted. THE MURDERER HAD NO RIGHT TO GET WHAT HE WANTED. YET HE GOT WHAT HE WANTED. The murderer wanted his victim dead and has gotten what he wanted. He has gotten what he wanted, even though he had no right to murder and his action was forbidden. The murder victim just wanted to live, yet she did not get what she wanted, even though she had a right to live and society had promised her that she would be allowed to live. Usually she was also providing valuable benefits to society as well as not harming anyone. THE MURDER VICTIM HAD EVERY RIGHT TO GET WHAT SHE WANTED. YET SHE DID NOT GET WHAT SHE WANTED. WHO IS AHEAD AT THIS POINT, THE MURDERER OR THE VICTIM? Can the victim ever catch up with her murderer? Is it just for the murderer to be better off than his victim? Is it fair for the murderer to be better off than his victim? Should we care about justice and fairness for the dead innocent victim? Once the murderer kills his victim, does he become more important than his victim? The murderer gains an unfair advantage over his victim the moment he begins to kill her. That is true even if he hasn’t already tortured her or raped her. After the victim dies, every second that the murderer lives, his unfair advantage over the victim is increased. That is the situation in a simple murder where the murder was done in a painless way. In such rare cases the murderer is given at least one fair trial, has appeals heard and then is given spiritual counseling and a last meal of his choice before his merciful execution. The victim had none of those things and has been dead for years before the murderer is executed. But the death penalty does provide the closest available approach to justice. Of course, many cases of capital murder are much worse than that, with the victim or victims being raped (sometimes many times by different rapists) and tortured, sometimes for hours or days, before a painful death. Then the victim's family has to go through a period of not knowing if their loved one is alive or dead. Then the victim's family has to relive the suffering of their loved one several times during the investigation, trial and appeals. If the murderer is not executed, the family members have to go through this for many years as the appeals and parole requests never stop. WHEN THE MURDERER IS EXECUTED YEARS AFTER THE MURDER, WHO WAS AHEAD AT THAT POINT, THE MURDERER OR THE VICTIM? Is it good that the murderer’s unfair advantage has stopped increasing? Bear in mind that, in many cases, the murderer further benefits over the victim by raping or torturing her or both. The cases of Amy Sue Seitz, Anita Cobby, Mary Adlay, Wendy Offredo and Heather Muller are instructive, as only a few of many examples. In those, easily accessed, cases, the murderer can repeatedly relive the pleasure of the rapes or torture. He can sit with other rapists and murderers in prison and they can share their fond memories of the pleasure they drew from their victims’ suffering. They can laugh and joke about how a victim begged not to be raped for the fourth or fifth time. They can swap stories about how their victims begged for their lives as they lay broken and bleeding. In one case a rape-murderer obtained the crime scene photographs of his victim to further increase his relived pleasures. Also in other cases, the murderer kills many victims. So, in such cases, the murderer gains even larger advantages over his victims. In no case does the murderer ever suffer as much as his victims. There are also two beneficial byproducts from adequate use of the death penalty; deterrence and prevention. When the death penalty is used, as many as 20 potential murderers are deterred from murdering for each additional execution. When a murderer is executed, he cannot kill or maim again. Thousands of innocent victims have been killed by previously convicted murderers who were not executed for their first murder. No innocent victim has ever been killed by an executed murderer. The DP also provides a benefit for the murderer, the opportunity for redemption. A murderer facing execution is given the benefit of a powerful incentive to review his past actions and seek the redemption of his soul. I was against the DP when I was young, foolish, arrogant and ignorant. Now that I have gained knowledge, learned wisdom and developed humility, I am for it. For justice, deterrence, incapacitation, obedience to God and salvation of the souls of murderers. There is no rational, honest and civilized opposing argument against the DP. Search hard for one. If you think you have found one, post it for destruction. Check out the thread under the "Subject" called "pro capital punishment essay" on this board for more info. By the way I am from the middle of nowhere in California as well, Lakeport. |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 11, 2006 14:23:27 GMT -6
Does anyone have other things that I may be able to use to help back me up? The simple answer to this question is yes. But the problem is you ask about "other things". Other things cannot be provided unless we know what the things are that you already have. But here is a summary I developed as a starting point: The reason for having a death penalty today is to provide an approach to justice for the victims of murder. I use the phrase "an approach to justice" because even if a murderer were to be struck dead one second after the murder, that still would not provide justice for the victim and the victim's family. The murderer, even when executed, always comes out ahead. The murderer always gets what he wanted. THE MURDERER HAD NO RIGHT TO GET WHAT HE WANTED. YET HE GOT WHAT HE WANTED. A great essay, similar to others you have posted, Donnie, and always welcome. I wish you were governor, not the baffoon asking for our votes now. |
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Mar 11, 2006 14:42:27 GMT -6
A great essay, similar to others you have posted, Donnie, and always welcome. Thank you Joe, just another contibution for the team Yeah, I could campaign as a Native Son from the great California political power base of Lake County. He may be a baffoon, but you have to admit that California has produced many others. I would mention some of their names, but I don't want to upset you. |
|
|
|
Post by middleofnowhere on Mar 11, 2006 14:54:36 GMT -6
Thanks Donnie, I can use some of that.
One main argument is "How can we play God and kill someone?" Well I don't exactly believe in God, and there are others that may be atheist or nothing at all, so it's morality for those people. But in my case I think the murderer played "God" when he killed the people or person he did.
|
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Mar 11, 2006 16:26:05 GMT -6
Thanks Donnie, I can use some of that. One main argument is "How can we play God and kill someone?" Well I don't exactly believe in God, and there are others that may be atheist or nothing at all, so it's morality for those people. But in my case I think the murderer played "God" when he killed the people or person he did. Good point, the murderer most assuredly did play God. But will your opponents be allowed to use religious arguments in a school debate? If so, that question is contrary to Scripture. God establsihed the DP. So, from a Christian perspective, two groups play God: Murderers and the group of people who use their personal opinion to override God's demand and save murderers from God's fate for them. There is a simpler name for the second group. |
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Mar 11, 2006 16:27:51 GMT -6
Thanks Donnie, I can use some of that. But what is your plan, overall? Is this an individual debate or a team debate? Will your teacher be on one side, overtly or covertly? |
|
|
|
Post by middleofnowhere on Mar 12, 2006 0:49:19 GMT -6
Well it's the whole class and they choose whether they are Pro or Anti, and pro sits on side and anti on the other. Then it's back and forth of opinions, facts, morals, and ideas. My teacher just makes sure it doesn't get too out of hand. Other than that, it's kinda like every man for himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by LEGAL EAGLE on Mar 12, 2006 4:01:08 GMT -6
DO YOU THINK CALIFORNIA SHOULD CHANGE IT'S METHOD OF EXECUTION TO FIRING SQUAD OR GUILLOTINE RATHER THAN HAVING THE FEDERAL APPEALS COURT AND THE MEDICAL PROFESSION QUESTION THE EFFICACY OF THE LETHAL INJECTION.
California's proposed changes to lethal injection procedures are being questioned by doctors, who say the intended safeguards will require trained medical supervision -- the same circumstance that led to an 11th-hour stay of an execution at San Quentin State Prison last month.
State lawyers who outlined the changes last week presented details under seal Wednesday to U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose. Fogel has scheduled a hearing in May on whether the state's methods of administering the three drugs used to kill condemned inmates pose a significant risk of errors that could leave a prisoner conscious and in agony.
The main revision proposed in the procedures the state has used since 1996 is the addition of a powerful, short-acting sedative that would be infused into the prisoner continuously during execution. Proponents say the approach would make sure the prisoner remains unconscious while paralyzing and heart-stopping chemicals are injected.
In the past, the sedative sodium pentothal has been injected in a single massive dose at the start of the execution. Fogel's concerns that the prisoner might regain consciousness, and the state's inability to arrange a doctor's attendance in the death chamber, prompted the judge to halt the scheduled Feb. 21 execution of Michael Morales of Stockton.
Morales, 46, was convicted of raping and murdering 17-year-old Terri Winchell in a vineyard near Lodi in 1981. State and federal courts have rejected appeals of his death sentence, and the only question now before the courts is how he is to be executed.
Fogel's order staying his execution has halted any further lethal injections at San Quentin until the judge reviews the proposed changes. If he decides that a doctor or other medical professional is needed as a safeguard, the state may have to go back to the drawing board.
The revised procedures do not include the presence of a doctor. But Dr. Ronald Miller, chairman of anesthesiology and perioperative care at UC San Francisco, said switching from a single shot of an anesthetic to a continuous infusion would increase the need for a trained medical professional, such as an anesthesiologist or nurse-anesthetist, to be in the death chamber.
"The problem is that you add to the complexity'' with a continuous flow of the sedative, which must be administered with an infusion pump, Miller said. "When the stakes are very high, you'd really better have somebody who knows what they're doing.''
"In the hospital, use of a continuous infusion I think is fraught with more dangers than a single shot,'' said Dr. Jeffrey Uppington, a professor of anesthesiology at UC Davis and district director of the California Society of Anesthesiologists. "It requires a continuous level of monitoring'' to make sure a patient does not awaken.
Both doctors and all major medical organizations consider participation by physicians in an execution to be unethical in a profession dedicated to healing. Uppington said it would even be unethical for him even to comment on the state's proposal, because that might be considered assisting an execution. He stressed that his observations involved only hospital procedures.
When Fogel ruled last month that Morales' execution could proceed if closely monitored by a medical professional, two anesthesiologists initially agreed to be present. However, they withdrew the night of the scheduled execution after learning that they might have to participate actively by ordering an increased dose of the sedative.
Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for state Attorney General Bill Lockyer, insisted that the new procedures would not require a doctor's participation.
"This is not a medical procedure,'' he said. "It's a criminal sentence. The legal standard is not what a medical doctor would do, but whether what the state is doing is cruel and unusual punishment.''
To convince a judge that lethal injection should not be used in an execution, Barankin said, Morales and his lawyers must prove that the state's procedures would not supply enough sedative to keep him unconscious. It's not enough to show that "there's some better way to do it,'' he said.
John Grele, a lawyer for Morales, said the new procedures raised numerous questions, such as how the continuous infusion of the sedative would be administered and monitored. "It just goes to show that they haven't thought this through,'' he said.
In another development, the American Civil Liberties Union sued this week in federal court on behalf of Pacific News Service to challenge the use of the second of the three execution drugs, pancuronium bromide, which paralyzes the voluntary muscles and halts breathing.
The suit contends that the drug serves no purpose in the execution, but makes it impossible to tell whether the prisoner is conscious, thus violating the constitutional rights of reporters and other witnesses to know what is happening.
Federal courts rejected another First Amendment claim last year on behalf of a prisoner who contended the paralyzing drug would prevent him from communicating if he was in pain.
The drug acts as "a chemical curtain that hides what really goes on in the death chamber,'' said Jon Streeter, a lawyer for the ACLU.
E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.
|
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Mar 12, 2006 14:28:40 GMT -6
Well it's the whole class and they choose whether they are Pro or Anti, and pro sits on side and anti on the other. Then it's back and forth of opinions, facts, morals, and ideas. My teacher just makes sure it doesn't get too out of hand. Other than that, it's kinda like every man for himself. Rest assured the teacher is on the anti-DP side or she would not have set up such a phoney debate process. It would be similiar to a sheriff saying to a lynch mob, "You can take the prisoner, but you all treat him right." Do you think anyone will have the guts to sit on your side? |
|
|
|
Post by middleofnowhere on Mar 12, 2006 16:40:25 GMT -6
Well it's the whole class and they choose whether they are Pro or Anti, and pro sits on side and anti on the other. Then it's back and forth of opinions, facts, morals, and ideas. My teacher just makes sure it doesn't get too out of hand. Other than that, it's kinda like every man for himself. Rest assured the teacher is on the anti-DP side or she would not have set up such a phoney debate process. It would be similiar to a sheriff saying to a lynch mob, "You can take the prisoner, but you all treat him right." Do you think anyone will have the guts to sit on your side? Yep, when we took a small vote of who would for a "estimate" amount of people - there was a group that did. So it's just the "bible" kids and "morality" people on the other side. |
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Mar 12, 2006 17:49:13 GMT -6
Yep, when we took a small vote of who would for a "estimate" amount of people - there was a group that did. When is this going to happen? Is there any possibility of organizing the pro-justice side? You should be able to whipsaw the anti-DP folk because they will probably step on each other with conflicting arguments. Right now they are probably complacent because of the majority that they saw during the vote. It is also quite unlikely that they have thought much about why they are against the death penalty. The "morality" people are clueless. It cannot ever be moral to oppose the pursuit of justice. The "bible" kids don't understand their Bible. Are you familiar with the alleged Bible arguments are? Remember you must know your enemy to defeat them. Once God imposed the duty on mankind to execute murderers, he restated it several times. That makes it more difficult for heretics to sustain their false claim that the moral duty to execute murderers doesn’t exist. However, the initial requirement should be sufficient for those who don’t wish to consider themselves greater than God. In Genesis Chapter 9 God spoke directly to all the humans then living. In verses 5 and 6 God established a clear requirement for the execution of murderers: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man”. Modern heretics have attempted to corrupt God’s word on capital punishment. Therefore, my daughter’s King James Study Bible (page 23) must provide a brief clarifying note: “The God-given right of executing murderers involves the establishment of human government following the Flood. This right of capital punishment has not been rescinded during the Christian Era (Acts 25:11; Romans 13:4). The really terrible thing about murder is that it strikes at the very image of God in man, which makes man of vital importance to God”. Jesus discussed the death penalty for murder in only one parable, it is presented in three Gospels. One presentation is in Luke 20: 9-16 Jesus: (14) “But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. (15) So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? (16) He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others.” See also Matthew 21: 33-41 and Mark 12: 1-9 One thing that is interesting about this parable is that Jesus affirmed the execution of several participants in the murder of one victim with minimal aggravating circumstances. Paul also addressed capital punishment in Acts 24, 11 and 12. Paul faced the death penalty with the following words: “For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die:”. Note that Paul is not referring to murder, but other crimes “worthy of death,” according to the Roman government. Matthew 21: 33-41 Jesus: (38) “But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir, come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. (39) And they caught him and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. (40) When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?” The response: (41) They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. Mark 12: 1-9 Jesus: (7) “But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours. (8) And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard. (9) What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.” |
|
|
|
Post by middleofnowhere on Mar 14, 2006 0:14:39 GMT -6
I wish I could bring you to class, lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Mar 14, 2006 6:06:45 GMT -6
I wish I could bring you to class, lol. Thank you , but that isn't planning for the battle. Have you been able to do that. Do you think the enemy will use the race tactic, falsly claiming that there are "racial disparities" in the application of the DP? How about the false claim that only the poor are ever executed? |
|
|
|
Post by J Benitez on Mar 14, 2006 14:10:22 GMT -6
 I REVIEWED THE STATE OF TEXAS SCHEDULE OF EXECUTIONS AND THEY SEEM TO SMOKE EM EVERYOTHER WEEK. IN SOME CASES BACK TO BACK....CALIFORNIA NEEDS TO JUMP ON THAT WAGON. CONGRATS TO TEXAS AND FLORIDA...KEEP UM ROLL'N !!!! CALI JUST STOPPED THE MORALES EXECUTION BECAUSE THERE WERE NO VOLUNTEERS...I'LL SIGN UP. THE SICK BASTARED HAS NO REGARD FOR THE PAID HE INFLICTED ON HIS VICTIM.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aimeebaby on Mar 26, 2006 2:30:25 GMT -6
:)Dear freshman,
I share a similar view on capital punishment, but if you want to deliver an effective speech in your debate class, you have to cut out all of the slanders that you are using in you argument. ie. "bible people" and "morality people." Do you consider your self heartless and unmoral? No, I didn't think so. Just because some don't believe killing the person is the answer doesn't make them "morality people". You are a good person with morals, who just so happen to believe in a different type of punishment. What you need to rely on are the facts: 1. don't bring religion in to your argument, it will only turn on you. 2. The reason that person was sentence to death was because they willfully terminated another persons life and justice must be implemented to the degree of the crime committed. There is a reason that this person is on death row, they didn't just steal candy from a baby, they ended a life. 3. please remember, above all, not to refer to ALL murderers as men and all victims as women. Women can kill and torture just as easy as a man.
|
|
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU ALL
Guest
|
Post by WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU ALL on Apr 7, 2006 18:55:30 GMT -6
dont be stupid, all of you.
WHY SHOULD WE KILL PEOPLE
WHO KILL PEOPLE
TO PROVE THAT KILLING IS WRONG?\
think about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Apr 7, 2006 19:21:27 GMT -6
dont be stupid, all of you. Nothing is wrong with me, I'm fine. As for being stupid, well that would be difficult for me. I was valedictorian of my high school class and graduated in the top third of my Naval Academy class. Then I took the Graduate Record Examination. The Academy had the entire class take it too as a quality control check on the academic program. They didn't tell us what it was and I didn't care because I had finished my classes and had no intention of going to graduate school. But going into it cold with that attitude, I scored in the 94th percentile. That means I was in the top ten percent of all of the college graduates who were thinking about going to graduate school that year. I am not writing any of this to brag. I am simply pointing out that being stupid is not an option for me. We shouldn't and we don't. We kill a few people who murder people to pursue justice. There are several other benefits that come along with that. I have thought about it. Not for long though, because it is such a shallow saying. But I have also thought about the use of the death penalty for a long time since I was active against the DP for about 25 years. Then for another six years I thought about whether I should be involved at all in activity either for or against the DP. Then I finally decided to support the DP. Since then, there have been many things that have reinforced my decision. One of those influences is the simplistic saying that you just posted. |
|
|
|
Post by ProDP on Apr 10, 2006 6:21:02 GMT -6
Good stuff guys this really helped me get some info on idea ad opinions the help me. I am also doing a class debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by phatkat on Apr 10, 2006 15:03:43 GMT -6
WOW....antis are the ENEMY....it takes guts to be pro-dp....and antis must not have thought out their stance thoroughly.
Well, if that's the case, go Rambo; go slaughter (metaphorically speaking) those antis who obviously aren't capable of thinking!!
Just remember that, as this is a school project, it is probably set up so that those on both sides can learn something from each other - at the very least, that it is possible for intelligent and logical thought to exist outside of the realm of your own opinions, and that people with differing opinions are not necessarily opposite in every way.
But if you're too busy taking the advice of people on here and FIGHTING THE ENEMY, more power to ya.
PS-I'm an anti who was validictorian of my HS class, got a 32 ACT and 1330 SAT (took both once), graduated from college cum laude and currently hold a 4.0 in masters classes. Intelligence exists on both sides.
|
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Apr 11, 2006 19:11:36 GMT -6
WOW....antis are the ENEMY....it takes guts to be pro-dp....and antis must not have thought out their stance thoroughly. There is no doubt that anti-DP folk are the enemy of the pursuit of justice. Whether or not it takes guts to be pro-DP depends on the planned activity and the venue. Use your powerful brains for a little deeper thought. When a person is outnumbered five to one and the teacher is against her, yes, it does take guts to speak out in favor of the DP. Anti-DP folk have not thought out their stance, that is repeatedly demonstrated by the trite slogans they use and the shallow arguments they present. That would be true if all teachers favored teaching. But, sadly, there are many teachers who use their classrooms as bully pulpits to intellectually seduce students who don't know any better. But it is the anti-DP people who most often assert that those who favor the pursuit of justice are stupid. You may have noticed that I was responding to just such an assertion and never suggested that anti-DP are stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by phatkat on Apr 12, 2006 8:04:51 GMT -6
Hey Donnie, she never said she was outnumbered five to one or even outnumbered, and nowhere was it even suggested (except by you) that the teacher is an anti!! It seems to me that you are just trying to make this more exciting!!!
Pros have plenty of shallow arguments and trite slogans - the main one being that anti-dp means anti-justice; as if we all want to slap a murderer on the butt and send him back to society to roam free. The majority of antis are in favor of LWOP (and really, seriously, *deleted*). That really is some people's conception of justice.
Ooh, and it's most often the antis who assert that the pros are stupid - yet you're the one who told me I don't use my brains, and neither do most antis. Hmmm. Hey pot, you're looking a little dark today.
|
|
|
|
Post by SkyLoom on Apr 20, 2006 12:22:46 GMT -6
Thanks Donnie, I can use some of that. One main argument is "How can we play God and kill someone?" Well I don't exactly believe in God, and there are others that may be atheist or nothing at all, so it's morality for those people. But in my case I think the murderer played "God" when he killed the people or person he did. You don't have to use God; only that human beings are notoriously prone to making mistakes. Are you willing to accept the idea that executing people may be one of those mistakes? |
|
|
|
Post by SkyLoom on Apr 20, 2006 12:27:10 GMT -6
Hey Donnie, she never said she was outnumbered five to one or even outnumbered, and nowhere was it even suggested (except by you) that the teacher is an anti!! It seems to me that you are just trying to make this more exciting!!! Pros have plenty of shallow arguments and trite slogans - the main one being that anti-dp means anti-justice; as if we all want to slap a murderer on the butt and send him back to society to roam free. The majority of antis are in favor of LWOP (and really, seriously, *deleted*). That really is some people's conception of justice. Ooh, and it's most often the antis who assert that the pros are stupid - yet you're the one who told me I don't use my brains, and neither do most antis. Hmmm. Hey pot, you're looking a little dark today. This is so true about the shallow arguments and trite slogans. |
|
|
|
Post by Mya crawford on May 1, 2006 15:35:22 GMT -6
???Hi i am agenst the death penalty but i have always liked to hear the two sides to every story i would like to know why you are so strongly pr death penalty... thanks for your help sincerly, dased and confused 14 year old  |
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on May 1, 2006 15:48:17 GMT -6
???Hi i am agenst the death penalty but i have always liked to hear the two sides to every story i would like to know why you are so strongly pr death penalty... thanks for your help sincerly, dased and confused 14 year old I wont attempt to answer that as I am an anti, but I am surprised no pro has responded yet. |
|
|
|
Post by ariana on May 22, 2006 15:52:52 GMT -6
I'm doing a debate on capital punishment too. I just wanted you to know that you shouldn't say the murderer was acting like God in taking the other persons life because when using the death penalty the government is acting as if they were God, and is taking the life of another.
|
|
|
|
Post by God on May 22, 2006 16:30:51 GMT -6
I'm doing a debate on capital punishment too. I just wanted you to know that you shouldn't say the murderer was acting like God in taking the other persons life because when using the death penalty the government is acting as if they were God, and is taking the life of another. And I just wanted to let you know that the government has my permisssion. |
|
|
|
Post by Amy on May 22, 2006 16:50:52 GMT -6
I'm doing a debate on capital punishment too. I just wanted you to know that you shouldn't say the murderer was acting like God in taking the other persons life because when using the death penalty the government is acting as if they were God, and is taking the life of another. And I just wanted to let you know that the government has my permisssion.  |
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on May 23, 2006 18:10:58 GMT -6
I just wanted you to know that you shouldn't say the murderer was acting like God in taking the other persons life because when using the death penalty the government is acting as if they were God, and is taking the life of another. Since you want to bring God into the picture, please remember that God instructed governments to execute murderers. That instruction has never been withdrawn, although it is repeated in the New Testament. So those who are playing God are those who have decided that they are better than God and want to countermand God's instruction by abolishing the penalty that God decreed. |
|
