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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
More:
Why didn't Jesus speak against the death penalty when he was about to be excecuted? Would't he have said something if it was wrong?
The reason why was the same reason he did not say much at all. He didn't lie, but he didn't try to convince the ones in power that he was innocent. He was taking the punishment for Himself to save us from our own sins.
Why isn't the Bible so clear on this, if the law about the death penalty changed in the New Testament?
God made it wear you have to think and look hard to try to interprate the Bible when it came to certain contriversies. God wants us to praise Him with our spirit, body and mind. And it's a good excersize to look into a controversy involving the Bible.
The reason why was the same reason he did not say much at all. He didn't lie, but he didn't try to convince the ones in power that he was innocent. He was taking the punishment for Himself to save us from our own sins.
Why isn't the Bible so clear on this, if the law about the death penalty changed in the New Testament?
God made it wear you have to think and look hard to try to interprate the Bible when it came to certain contriversies. God wants us to praise Him with our spirit, body and mind. And it's a good excersize to look into a controversy involving the Bible.
A tough question:
If we were all in the End Times, while the Antichrist was controlling the entire world, would you still support the death penalty, or would you be more careful to spread out the word of Christ? While hanging on the cross, Jesus Christ asked the first part of the trinity of God, the father to "forgive them for what they do." In John 3, it's clear that Jesus had come to the Earth to save the world, not punish the world, despite all of our sins.
The death penalty is something the antichrist will clearly use. The antichrist will obviously want to use the death penalty. Having the death penalty before the antichrist comes to power will not slow him down. All though we cannot prevent the antichrist from comming to power through the abolishment of the death penalty, the death penalty before he comes to power may become one of his missuses. The death penalty before the antichrist comes to power would only make the end times worse.
The death penalty is something the antichrist will clearly use. The antichrist will obviously want to use the death penalty. Having the death penalty before the antichrist comes to power will not slow him down. All though we cannot prevent the antichrist from comming to power through the abolishment of the death penalty, the death penalty before he comes to power may become one of his missuses. The death penalty before the antichrist comes to power would only make the end times worse.
List of more affective ways to handle cases of crime than the death penalty.
It's true that there must be better ways to deal with criminals than the death penalty.
> Work harder to have more trustworthy, careful people in the government.
> If you have to, temporarily disable any murderer to stop him from getting out of prison.
> The law should use reasonable, physical harm when needed to stop a murderer from killing.
> When possible, the law could make criminals pay money for their own imprisonment, so that they are affordable.
If needed, the law can raise taxes in order to keep prisons affordable. Even though it would be a pain, economics are not worth risking lives or directly killing for. God maybe taking our economy away because we have become too dependent on our money and longed for it on a level we shouldn't have.
> Work harder to have more trustworthy, careful people in the government.
> If you have to, temporarily disable any murderer to stop him from getting out of prison.
> The law should use reasonable, physical harm when needed to stop a murderer from killing.
> When possible, the law could make criminals pay money for their own imprisonment, so that they are affordable.
If needed, the law can raise taxes in order to keep prisons affordable. Even though it would be a pain, economics are not worth risking lives or directly killing for. God maybe taking our economy away because we have become too dependent on our money and longed for it on a level we shouldn't have.
List of arguements about the death penalty:
- Is the government trustworthy enough to have that much power, or people's lives in their hands.
- Does killing more than one person make killing one person right?
- Is the government trustworthy enough to have the power to use the death penalty?
- Is the death penalty making the world a bit more dangerous for citizens?
- Are there better ways to handle crime than the death penalty?
- Does the death penalty still please God?
- Does the government have authority to use the death penalty?
RE: www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/punish.html
www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/punish.html is a website by James L. Melton. The website shows 3 points supporting the theory for the death sentence:
(1) The death penalty honors God.
(2) The death penalty is a deterrent to crime.
(3) The death penalty is good for the environment.
Responses:
> The verses used in the first point in the website were either Old Testament commands for the death penalty and ones from the New Testament warning us of God's punishments. In the New Testament passage, John 8: 1- 12 the words: "The first of you that is righteous may be the first to stone her" and the fact that Jesus stopped the pharisees from using the death penalty for an Old Testament purpose and then the talk Jesus and the convicted after the pharisees had given up about how Jesus didn't condemn her any more than they did, it's clear that either God, no longer enforced the death penalty for the same reasons in the Old Testament.
> Researchers often estimate the death penalty does not reduce crime. They are probably right and because of these reasons:
(1) some criminals fear other punishments other than the death penalty.
(2) Many criminals are under the influence of drugs that can support foolish acts, so they aren't always afraid either way.
(3) Criminals seem to be used to risking their lives for personal gain, considering the fact that their lives are at stake without it. The death penalty isn't much more than
(4) Criminals have used the law to falsely accuse anyone who accuses them, which not only gets some out of the way, but also gains them a little bit of trust from the law, as the law may suspect anyone who re- accuses him.
> Measurements show the death penalty more dangerous. If the chance of it reducing crime is at 50% or below and then there's something that makes the death penalty itself a killer of citizens, while it's mainly killing criminals, then logically, it's probably going to kill more than it will save unless off course, it's abolished. There are two reasons that the death penalty itself is a killer:
(1) We've seen killed people who haven't been proven to have done anything that would be worth the death penalty, if it was okay. We've obviously seen many false accusations as the law sometimes can't even make up its mind.
(2) There are millions and millions and millions of people inside our government. They can't all be there for the right reasons. Some of them must be doing something critical and wrong and all for their own advantage. Some judges and members of jury will take cases for granite and others will turn it to their advantage. The government has neither the trustworthiness or the authority to use the death penalty.
> James Melton's "debunking" for the point that the death penalty doesn't reduce crime is it's not used enough. He thinks if for every murder, there was a death penalty, it would slow down big time. Off course, this hypophysis isn't true. If the law tried to do that, they'd probably be killing as many innocent as a terrorist leader might end up doing.
> In his point about the environment, James Melton says Numbers 35: 33- 34 is direct. But the truth is, it's obviously an expression. Criminals don't normally pollute the air in any way other than what we can do and they didn't back then either. There are two likely ways the word "pollute" might have been used in this chapter:
Possible meaning one: Influence "pollution." They say the death penalty causes bad influence and that the criminals should be killed. But that makes no sense.
Responses: 1, you can't stop that influence with all the murder, suicide, murder/suicide and all of the other intentioned, tragic deaths. 2, few people will be influenced much by criminals. 3, a Christian believer cannot be forced by human influenced to do anything. 4, For the people who can be influenced by criminals, death itself is a source of worthless, murderous determination. The death penalty may encourage this bad influence.
Possible meaning two: Crime rates. Again, the death penalty seemingly doesn't reduce crime, while there are several already seen reasons it can be a killer itself.
However, James L. Melton was RIGHT about what he said afterward. You do have to accept Christ as your savior. God's obviously the only one that can keep you from the big consequences of your own sins. Do not do the wrong thing and keep Him from saving you. Although He has the power to save you, you have to accept Him because God can't be with sin. It's just impossible.
(1) The death penalty honors God.
(2) The death penalty is a deterrent to crime.
(3) The death penalty is good for the environment.
Responses:
> The verses used in the first point in the website were either Old Testament commands for the death penalty and ones from the New Testament warning us of God's punishments. In the New Testament passage, John 8: 1- 12 the words: "The first of you that is righteous may be the first to stone her" and the fact that Jesus stopped the pharisees from using the death penalty for an Old Testament purpose and then the talk Jesus and the convicted after the pharisees had given up about how Jesus didn't condemn her any more than they did, it's clear that either God, no longer enforced the death penalty for the same reasons in the Old Testament.
> Researchers often estimate the death penalty does not reduce crime. They are probably right and because of these reasons:
(1) some criminals fear other punishments other than the death penalty.
(2) Many criminals are under the influence of drugs that can support foolish acts, so they aren't always afraid either way.
(3) Criminals seem to be used to risking their lives for personal gain, considering the fact that their lives are at stake without it. The death penalty isn't much more than
(4) Criminals have used the law to falsely accuse anyone who accuses them, which not only gets some out of the way, but also gains them a little bit of trust from the law, as the law may suspect anyone who re- accuses him.
> Measurements show the death penalty more dangerous. If the chance of it reducing crime is at 50% or below and then there's something that makes the death penalty itself a killer of citizens, while it's mainly killing criminals, then logically, it's probably going to kill more than it will save unless off course, it's abolished. There are two reasons that the death penalty itself is a killer:
(1) We've seen killed people who haven't been proven to have done anything that would be worth the death penalty, if it was okay. We've obviously seen many false accusations as the law sometimes can't even make up its mind.
(2) There are millions and millions and millions of people inside our government. They can't all be there for the right reasons. Some of them must be doing something critical and wrong and all for their own advantage. Some judges and members of jury will take cases for granite and others will turn it to their advantage. The government has neither the trustworthiness or the authority to use the death penalty.
> James Melton's "debunking" for the point that the death penalty doesn't reduce crime is it's not used enough. He thinks if for every murder, there was a death penalty, it would slow down big time. Off course, this hypophysis isn't true. If the law tried to do that, they'd probably be killing as many innocent as a terrorist leader might end up doing.
> In his point about the environment, James Melton says Numbers 35: 33- 34 is direct. But the truth is, it's obviously an expression. Criminals don't normally pollute the air in any way other than what we can do and they didn't back then either. There are two likely ways the word "pollute" might have been used in this chapter:
Possible meaning one: Influence "pollution." They say the death penalty causes bad influence and that the criminals should be killed. But that makes no sense.
Responses: 1, you can't stop that influence with all the murder, suicide, murder/suicide and all of the other intentioned, tragic deaths. 2, few people will be influenced much by criminals. 3, a Christian believer cannot be forced by human influenced to do anything. 4, For the people who can be influenced by criminals, death itself is a source of worthless, murderous determination. The death penalty may encourage this bad influence.
Possible meaning two: Crime rates. Again, the death penalty seemingly doesn't reduce crime, while there are several already seen reasons it can be a killer itself.
However, James L. Melton was RIGHT about what he said afterward. You do have to accept Christ as your savior. God's obviously the only one that can keep you from the big consequences of your own sins. Do not do the wrong thing and keep Him from saving you. Although He has the power to save you, you have to accept Him because God can't be with sin. It's just impossible.