Viewpoints: Is the death penalty likely to reduce crimes?

PRO:
The death penalty punishes those who might escape prison or still remain a criminal even after being physically tortured.
CON:
Many criminals from history and now are proving to be more afraid of torture than the death penalty. And there is little chance of prison escape. When a country outlaws the death penalty, it is not suddenly plunged into crime because of it. And the law doesn't have to worry about killing somebody over a false accusation, like countries with the death penalty. There are better ways to punish.
PRO:
The death sentence is cheaper than jail.
CON:
Other punishments, like physical torture is more effective and less expensive. It can be reserved for the bigger criminals who need it. Torture is also reversible, giving extra protection to the falsely accused from death.
CON:
Criminals can be fined so that their prison doesn't take as much money from the government.
PRO:
It seems that the people who do fear the death penalty more than prison fear it strongly. It only takes on person who fears the death penalty to expose his entire group, panicking for his life.
Con:
It's the same thing with torture, except it seems as if the majority of criminals fear other things more than death.
Con:
The death penalty causes very bad systems. A death caused by a false accusation can lead to another, especially considering the believed "evidence" it took to fool the jury, that someone had done something they didn't. It can also lead to another murder or false accusation because of the anger or rash thinking it leads to. If one system happens, it may go again.
PRO:
Criminals anger the families and friends that have lost a victim.
CON:
Man does not have the authority or right to use revenge, as we all deserve the same thing. The Bible is against humans taking their own revenge. And, to be in a position of having a friend or family member who was framed and put to death is more experienced because the law is for the person who murdered. Try to imagine what they want and why. There are many who are angry and disappointed at people for several different reasons, including for trying to convince a judge to give someone the death penalty. Mankind cannot kill in anger.

If you kill a non- believer you are directly letting someone go to hell, but if you were to let them live, you would give them a better chance, and there would still be an extremely small chance of a prison escape.

Do you really still think you can give the death penalty to someone God created?

We do not have authority to use the death penalty!

The Old Testament purpose for the death penalty, which was killing God's enemies, was directly downplayed in the New Testament. Jesus said that anyone not with Him is against Him, but after that, to go and tell non- believers about Him. He acted toward the downplaying of the Old Testament purpose in John 8: 12, in which He saved a women who was about to be put to death, by religious leaders. He said: "Those of you who are righteous may be the first to stone her." After He stopped them, He said to the women that if the religious leaders did not condemn her, then neither did He, even though He had just saved her from them. In a way, saying they were unworthy to kill her. And it's that He was standing against something hypocritical, acknowledging the words He used against the leaders. Some say Jesus was holding against the death penalty itself; some claim that he was just saying not to punish people when there's no reason for it other than them deserving it; and some people think that He was standing against people punishing others for sins they had done. It seems to me that he was standing against punishing people just because they deserve it because he said: "Those of you who are righteous may be the first to stone her." Either way, the Old Testament purpose for the death penalty had been downplayed. The New Testament says that we all deserve death. It also says all that hate or say they hate have murdered, which everyone has done. The New Testament makes it clear that sin goes down we have done in our heart. And if what Jesus was saying didn't downplay the Old Testament purpose for the death penalty, why didn't he have the early Christians execute Saul, instead of saving him? Jesus saved him, and Jesus cannot sin.

Jesus made several other demonstrations of His love for criminals. We can prove what Jesus means to tell us through His words by examining his actions. In the book of Acts, from the New Testament, we see what Jesus wants for criminals. Saul was a killer of Christians back then, d


In the Old Testament, people were punished for what the had earned through crimes. In the New Testament, Jesus stood against killing people merely for deserving it. The Bible says: "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." But many who are for the death penalty are saying that we need it in order to protect innocent people. But the death penalty legalized is killing innocent people. Not all of the news- reported murderers sent to the death penalty were not proved to have killed a victim, when the Judges often had blind ambition to believe the accusations. Often, the officers and Jury assume things that they don't know. A few pieces of small evidence seems to be convincing to someone who has faith in things he shouldn't, thinks slowly or has another problem with reasoning.

It's usually harder to escape if you're being sent to execution by the government, than if you're being attacked by a criminal, although most people don't think about it. Most people worry more about being illegally attacked than framed. I for one, feel differently.

In the New Testament, over 10 books were written by the Apostle Paul. Paul was once Saul, a radical politician who supported the killing of Christians. God transformed Saul, instead of killing him. Paul eventually lead thousands to Christ in his time, and definitely has a big affect on the present. But Paul, in the last part of his Earthly life, was killed because of the death penalty, and because Christians were often framed by Jews and evil dictators. This story goes against the death penalty from before to after Paul's life. This change is an example of the many criminals that became Christians and spread the word around.

The death penalty can never be used in a non- hypocritical way. It is merely killing many innocent people and criminals who might have become Christians over a small likely hood of anyone escaping prison, or to scare criminals. Researchers estimate that the death penalty does not reduce crime. And they are right.The real reason why many of the criminals that wait until they get caught before they suddenly say they deserve the death penalty, do so, is because many criminals are more afraid of other things, like imprisonment than death. Even a criminal who fears death more than any other federal punishment isn't likely going to turn himself in because of the death penalty, considering the risks he's already taking of being killed by his victims.

Here are some reasons why the death penalty doesn't reduce crime:

(1) The government can easily misuse the death penalty and then pretend to be doing it for the people.

(2)

We obviously have better punishments than killing. Using the death penalty is as bad as being the kind of killer that you want to punish. We can't afford the death penalty.

Here are a list of examples for possible and obviously already done acts that can be used to frame someone else:

(1). Moving fingerprints from one place to another.

(2) Looking at a picture of a fingerprint and making a "tattoo" on the place where you want it to be.

(3) Hoaxing notes.

(4) Taking advantage of the "bad cops."

(5) Lying in a persuasive way.

Some things are often more effective than the death penalty. Here are some examples found in the past of people who are more fearful of other things than the death penalty:
(1) Adolph Hitler was a radical that lead to the second known Global war. He killed millions just for his attention. It was said at the time by a lot of people that we could to learn from this war that we need the death penalty. But here's the truth: Hitler or one of his fakes decided to use suicide. Whether it was Hitler, avoiding something he hated worse, or someone threatened or persuaded into killing himself for him, there are some things more than death.

(2) Historians say that Nero, the dictator who killed the Apostle Paul, used false accusations to murder and then, proved the fact that the death penalty was not always more effective than torture, by eventually committing suicide, showing his hatred of his life.

If the death penalty is cut off, than the law will kill less innocent people, and criminals will have a more chance of becoming Christians, like the Apostle Paul. And the people more afraid of torture or jail than the death penalty will be less likely to kill. It is harder to escape the death penalty over a false accusation than it is being attacked by a criminal. Only God has the authority and knows enough to decide to kill someone in custody.

If the death penalty remains legalized, we will continue to see people killed without a proven reason or that could have become Christians and be saved. We can't afford the death penalty anymore. The death penalty is like a killing machine that murders all the time it exists. And the death penalty may turn to the advantage to one who became Judge or member of a jury for his or her own personal gain. After all, it seems as if many Judges and members of juries make their decisions based on attention, murdering people merely for their own gain.


The executioners and the death penalty:

If someone thinks about it, one who is an executioner for a one year period, killing several per week, they will almost certainly have killed at least one person for a false accusation or misunderstanding. An executioner who kills someone not out of direct defense with gas, electric chairs, physical destruction or another way may easily rise his aggression, with or without meaning to. We don't have any ability to be sure that any criminal might not become a Christian if they aren't killed. And if the executioner chooses to kill someone even though his conscience says that they shouldn't be given the death penalty, he may never think clearly again, because the mental contradiction is so big that he cannot use his mind to successfully use understanding.

And does one killing more than one mean killing him is right? No. Killing him would just be murdering another person, doing the same thing to him, he might do to someone else.

The death penalty has no value. It doesn't please God or help the people. It's actually the opposite. In that case, killing someone is complete murder. Whether or not something is sin depends on whether or not it's worth it for you, whether it's worth it for others and whether or not it will displease God. The death penalty is clearly not worth it. When you kill someone when it's not worth it or pleasing to God, you are wasting one's life. If you take some one's life wastefully, logically, you are murdering them. Murder is a sin that displeases God is today, damaging the world as it has since Cane killed Able. The death penalty is sin.

Then, there's an old argument: since God never changes his mind, why would he enforce the death penalty during one part of the Bible and then later, abolish it? The answer is: God didn't change his mind. In the New Testament, when Jesus offered salvation to the entire world and a lot of potential changes were being made, the death penalty was no longer needed.

But since the Bible talks about being obedient to and honoring government authorities, does that mean the government can do what they want even if the death penalty has absolutely no value? Off course not. First of all, God is the ultimate and final authority. So, if God has anything against the death penalty, the government should too. Secondly, obedience is respecting the authority God gave to someone. He said to be wise and to not murder. Since the death penalty is worthless and life- taking, it is against both of those commands God made for us. Thirdly, the law was originally enforced by God for the people's own good. The government's authority puts them in no position to murder.

The government not only lacks the authority to use the death penalty but also, many people are no where near trustworthy enough to use it, even if it was the right thing to do. If a president, king or military- lead government were to abolish the death penalty, then they might be doing it for the right reasons and if they were, it would be because they knew the death penalty was 100% wrong. If that wasn't the reason, we could hope it was because they knew that not all parts of the government involved with the death penalty were trustworthy enough to hold other people's lives in their hands. History shows many people inside governments who were acting as cheaters with deadly amounts of power. Here's some past examples of members of the government that had too much power for the amount of how trustworthy they were:

> Adolf Hitler and Nazi members.

> Leaders of England during America's revolutionary war.

> Porfirio Diaz, the so- called "President" of Mexico.

> Joseph Stalin, an old dictator of Russia.

In every country that has a government, it's obvious that with a government of a lot of people making the laws, a lot of people enforcing it through security, a lot of people interpreting it and deciding who to punish, and in all millions enforcing it through direct force, we've got plenty of people in the government that are not trustworthy, that should not have the powers that they do. To some of them, allowing the death penalty only gives them more power.

To some of you this video will be a surprise, to others, it will not: www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHEIi4XKRmM

Some argue that the death penalty is a very good thing because it slows down bad influence coming from the criminals. There are three responses:

> There are many people who can be influenced by one's death the same way they could by someone living. For example, some people have been influenced by the 9/11 attacks, into dying as a terrorist. Some others refuse to evacuate to avoid a natural disaster (hurricane, tornado, volcanic eruption, etc) because they've been influenced by people like Harry Truman, who died in a Mount Saint Helens eruption, because of his refusal to leave the area where he lived in.

> The devil cannot "make" someone sin, if they have accepted Christ.

> The maximum influence that a criminal can have on someone (someone who let's them influence them) is murder. That's the exact same thing that the death penalty is.

Another argument is that the death penalty keeps certain criminals from escaping from prison and killing more and more people. But the thing is, is that if we do our trials fairly, we have to take a while, around two years before we can persecute the accused. And new methods should be added to secure jails.

The government is not trustworthy or careful enough to use the death penalty. We no longer have the authority to punish people for what they deserve. The death penalty makes life as a citizen even more dangerous, by allowing murder to be committed through the law. God no longer reinforces the death penalty. All together, the death penalty is wrong and should be abolished in every country in the world.