# The Death Penalty



## Chapuunka (May 19, 2010)

I'm supposed to give a 2-3 minute persuasive speech on a political issue for school, and I've chosen the death penalty. I've got my points, and I want to see if any of you clever people see any fallacies I should fix.

To clarify, I'm speaking of capital punishment in the US. Feel free to debate amongst yourselves about the laws in other countries, but that's what my argument is for.


Stance: pro-death penalty; specifically, it should be legal but felons should get the choice between death and life imprisonment. Only to be used for serious felonies such as murder.

Points:
- ethically correct (biblically)
- humane
- cost-effective (vs life imprisonment)
- deters future criminals
- past precedents and other history support it


Arguments against:
- screw the Bible/Christianity!
America was founded as a Christian nation (under *God*)

- killing people is inhumane!
Most states use a method of lethal injection that is created to be painless

- killing people is unethical!
The Bible clearly states in Leviticus 24:17 that "Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death." The Christian God also killed many unrighteous people (ex. Sodom & Gomorrah).

- doesn't actually deter other criminals!
A study was preformed in 1973 by Isaac Ehrlich that showed for every inmate executed, 7 lives were saved because of criminals unwilling to face the consequences

- it's hypocritical--you're killing people too!
The law is against people *murdering* other people. Dictionary.com defines murder as, "to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously," but it defines kill as, "to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay."

- screw precedents and history; this is now!
Much of our law is based upon precedents passed in past court cases, and you know what they say about history repeating itself.


How I'm going to get this through in 2-3 minutes is beyond me, but we'll see.


----------



## koreancuber (May 19, 2010)

take out the biblical arguments. I'm pretty sure many people will get offended by it.


----------



## Kirjava (May 19, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> America was founded as a Christian nation (under *God*)




I've often heard that this is incorrect.


----------



## Chapuunka (May 19, 2010)

koreancuber said:


> take out the biblical arguments. I'm pretty sure many people will get offended by it.



1. I don't really care.
2. http://bible.cc/galatians/1-10.htm




Kirjava said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > America was founded as a Christian nation (under *God*)
> ...



I'm pretty sure most of the founding fathers were some form of Christian, and a lot of the basic laws follow plenty of Christian teachings.


----------



## koreancuber (May 19, 2010)

i've seen my friend get a referral from that.


----------



## EVH (May 19, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > America was founded as a Christian nation (under *God*)
> ...



"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are equal and the are endowed by their *Creator* with certain unalienable rights. That among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
-D of I

Not necessarily God but with christian principles all throughout the Constitution. I know it says creator and not God but still.

anyway maybe talk about Furman v. Georgia and Gregg v. Georgia. Two capital punishment cases one ruled it unconstitutional in some ways and the other ruled in constitutional. And the 8th Amendment as well.


----------



## shelley (May 19, 2010)

The Bible is not the single authoritative source of what is and isn't ethical. And it seems kind of silly that a Christian nation would allow its citizens freedom of religion and value separation of church and state, wouldn't you think?

Take out all the biblical arguments. They're not relevant. If you want to cite the Bible and Christian values when arguing about the death penalty, does that mean your arguments don't apply to Muslim and Buddhist convicts?


----------



## EVH (May 19, 2010)

shelley said:


> The Bible is not the single authoritative source of what is and isn't ethical. And it seems kind of silly that a Christian nation would allow its citizens freedom of religion and value separation of church and state, wouldn't you think?
> 
> Take out all the biblical arguments. They're not relevant.



Yes this is true, I am a Christian but the Bible isn't that relevant to this.


----------



## Feryll (May 19, 2010)

inb4 GIANT FLAMES OF WAR!!


----------



## Tortin (May 19, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> koreancuber said:
> 
> 
> > take out the biblical arguments. I'm pretty sure many people will get offended by it.
> ...



Wrong and wrong. Most of the founding fathers were deist or ambivalent. And what christian teachings, exactly?
take out the stuff about the bible. Completely irrelevant.


----------



## Ranzha (May 19, 2010)

Did this really deserve a thread? Also, why would speedsolvers with different religions be of any help?
My real advice to you is that you can do your own work. Our input won't help much if it comes at a different stance upon the subject than you have. That's why *you* are persuading *us* to agree with you.

Also, the "Christian God" is also the god of the Jews and of Islam through the Old Testament, from what I have been told. Considering Genesis, the first book, containing the Sodom and Gomorrah story, is in the Old Testament, it is not just the "Christian God" that did that, as the followers of the aforementioned religions believe.


----------



## Neo63 (May 19, 2010)

shelley said:


> The Bible is not the single authoritative source of what is and isn't ethical. And it seems kind of silly that a Christian nation would allow its citizens freedom of religion and value separation of church and state, wouldn't you think?
> 
> Take out all the biblical arguments. They're not relevant. If you want to cite the Bible and Christian values when arguing about the death penalty, does that mean your arguments don't apply to Muslim and Buddhist convicts?



This. I don't see how Christianity has anything to do with this, so what if the Bible is pro-death penalty? Basing the constitution of a country on a religion is ridiculous.


----------



## Chapuunka (May 19, 2010)

EVH said:


> Yes this is true, I am a Christian but the Bible isn't that relevant to this.



Have you read the Bible...?



shelley said:


> The Bible is not the single authoritative source of what is and isn't ethical.



I'm not saying it is; but in a nation that was founded on basically Christian principals and with a huge percentage of its population calling themselves Christians it's a very relevant source.


----------



## EVH (May 19, 2010)

Tortin said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > koreancuber said:
> ...



Episcopalian/Anglican 32 57.1%
Congregationalist 13 23.2%
Presbyterian 12 21.4%
Quaker 2 3.6%
Unitarian or Universalist 2 3.6%
Catholic 1 1.8%
TOTAL 56 100%

Source:http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Thomas Jefferson was a Deist. I cannot think of any others.


----------



## Kirjava (May 19, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > Chapuunka said:
> ...




You are incorrect then.



Chapuunka said:


> a lot of the basic laws follow plenty of Christian teachings.




Christianity didn't invent the idea of not killing people.


----------



## CubesOfTheWorld (May 19, 2010)

Ya'll just trollin'.


----------



## abr71310 (May 19, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > America was founded as a Christian nation (under *God*)
> ...




It is.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Ben Franklin (all either Presidents or those with LOTS of power) were NOT Christian and absolutely despised the fact that people believed that.

Look on Google for exact quotes.


----------



## EVH (May 19, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Christianity didn't invent the idea of not killing people.



Actually this holds true to Christians. The first murder was Cain killing Abel. God punished Abel for this proving that it was wrong.


----------



## abr71310 (May 19, 2010)

CubesOfTheWorld said:


> Ya'll just trollin'.



Stop talking, you ignorant moron.


----------



## Neo63 (May 19, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > The Bible is not the single authoritative source of what is and isn't ethical.
> ...



Did you not realize that there are Americans who do not believe in Christianity?

EDIT: How a nation was founded should not affect how the laws are made today. Things change, and ideas change.


----------



## Kirjava (May 19, 2010)

EVH said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > Christianity didn't invent the idea of not killing people.
> ...




Well, aren't you quite the fruitcake?


----------



## shelley (May 19, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > The Bible is not the single authoritative source of what is and isn't ethical.
> ...



Consider nations under Sharia law. The ones who practice honor killing if a girl falls in love with the wrong man. Do you think that's ethical and justified because a huge percentage of their population is Muslim?

What if we happened to be founded as a Buddhist nation? Would the death penalty suddenly be ethically wrong? (Incidentally, the death penalty is actually practiced in several primarily Buddhist nations: Thailand, Sri Lanka, Japan, Korea and Taiwan. So there goes your argument about laws adhering to the major religion of a country.)

You are trying to argue whether the death penalty is right or wrong. Not right or wrong depending on which book you happen to be reading. Seriously, you're asking us to point out weak points in your arguments. The biblical arguments are by far the weakest. Leave them out.


----------



## nitrocan (May 19, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> Points:
> *- ethically correct (biblically)*
> *- humane*
> - cost-effective (vs life imprisonment)
> ...


No.


> Arguments against:
> - screw the Bible/Christianity!
> America was founded as a Christian nation (under *God*)


Saying that will be the opposite of convincing.


> - killing people is unethical!
> The Bible clearly states in Leviticus 24:17 that "Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death." The Christian God also killed many unrighteous people (ex. Sodom & Gomorrah).


Another person trying to make murder look like a plausible thing using religion.


> - screw precedents and history; this is now!
> Much of our law is based upon precedents passed in past court cases, and *you know what they say about history repeating itself.*



I hope you're trying to persuade 3rd grade students.


----------



## Tortin (May 19, 2010)

EVH said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > Chapuunka said:
> ...



Guess what I just found? 
"All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable," is the original wording by Thomas Jefferson.

As for which were not Christian: Thomas Paine, George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, Ethan Allen, and Benjamin Franklin.

Also, we have a separation of church and state for a reason.


----------



## Chapuunka (May 19, 2010)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Also, why would speedsolvers with different religions be of any help?



I never said I only want Christian views posted here; I want to see a variety of views and sources so I can get some broad feedback.




Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> My real advice to you is that you can do your own work. Our input won't help much if it comes at a different stance upon the subject than you have. That's why *you* are persuading *us* to agree with you.



I did my work, I'm not asking you to do it for me. I'm asking for input and making sure I'm not being inconsistent. Besides, I'm not persuading you, but my teacher and class.




Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Also, the "Christian God" is also the god of the Jews and of Islam through the Old Testament, from what I have been told. Considering Genesis, the first book, containing the Sodom and Gomorrah story, is in the Old Testament, it is not just the "Christian God" that did that, as the followers of the aforementioned religions believe.



The Christian God is the God of the WHOLE Bible, whereas the Jewish God is the God of the Old Testament only. Islam says their God is the same, but it's really not.


----------



## CubesOfTheWorld (May 19, 2010)

abr71310 said:


> CubesOfTheWorld said:
> 
> 
> > Ya'll just trollin'.
> ...



Ya'll still trollin'.


----------



## EVH (May 19, 2010)

Neo63 said:


> Did you not realize that there are Americans who do not believe in Christianity?
> 
> EDIT: How a nation was founded should not affect how the laws are made today. Things change, and ideas change.



My last post on this subject, If you don't believe in Christianity then you are an idiot. Because Christianity exists. But I think you are trying to say in God. And yes we are a free country you are not forced to believe in God. But most laws are based on the bill of rights and other amendments. Capital Punishment is allowed and prevented by the 8th amendment.


----------



## nitrocan (May 19, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> Ranzha V. Emodrach said:
> 
> 
> > Also, the "Christian God" is also the god of the Jews and of Islam through the Old Testament, from what I have been told. Considering Genesis, the first book, containing the Sodom and Gomorrah story, is in the Old Testament, it is not just the "Christian God" that did that, as the followers of the aforementioned religions believe.
> ...



Hahhahahahaha 

How more ignorant could you be!?


----------



## CubesOfTheWorld (May 19, 2010)

nitrocan said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > Ranzha V. Emodrach said:
> ...



Ya'll also trollin'.


----------



## nlCuber22 (May 19, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> Islam says their God is the same, but it's really not.



Where's your proof?


----------



## CubesOfTheWorld (May 19, 2010)

nlCuber22 said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > Islam says their God is the same, but it's really not.
> ...



My social studies book for school.


----------



## Chapuunka (May 19, 2010)

nitrocan said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > Points:
> ...



1. Can you say more than just "No"? You need to back yourself up.

2. In what way?

3. I fail to see how that's murder; there's a difference between killing and murdering.

4. I realize it needs rewording; that's why I came here.


----------



## EVH (May 19, 2010)

Tortin said:


> Guess what I just found?
> "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable," is the original wording by Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> As for which were not Christian: Thomas Paine, George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, Ethan Allen, and Benjamin Franklin.
> ...



Okay I lied this is my last post. If Thomas Jefferson wrote the original D of I and wrote what you just said and John Adams had it re-written to what I posted, how would he not have some form of religion that is not Deism. He was Congregationalist if I am correct. Meaning that he goes to church. If he was a Deist why would he go to church?


----------



## Chapuunka (May 19, 2010)

shelley said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > shelley said:
> ...



I'm not saying I personally agree, but maybe for their country, yes. But honestly, I think the real problem there isn't the country but the citizens that need to re-evaluate their life decisions.


----------



## Neo63 (May 19, 2010)

EVH said:


> Neo63 said:
> 
> 
> > Did you not realize that there are Americans who do not believe in Christianity?
> ...



That was awfully nice of you. I'll definitely convert now.

and nice argument btw


----------



## nlCuber22 (May 19, 2010)

You don't understand what he was trying to say.


----------



## Chapuunka (May 19, 2010)

Tortin said:


> EVH said:
> 
> 
> > Kirjava said:
> ...



I'm willing to take that out of my argument, if nothing else for time's sake. I've been wrong before.




> Also, we have a separation of church and state for a reason.



Never said I agreed with that either.


----------



## zachtastic (May 19, 2010)

1. If felons are given the choice, it is no longer a punishment.
2. ethically correct (according to the christian bible)- playing god.
3. humane- slightest error in dosage can cause a painful death.
4. cost-effective- when a person is sentenced to the d.p. they are immediately given the opportunity to appeal. This tends to prolong the process for a number of years, wasting more money to the taxpayers than life in prison.
5.doesn't deter- new studies, more current than 1973, prove otherwise.

Basically cut out the bible quoting, and look for statistics, "all persons have inherent value", eye-for-an-eye. Those make better arguments than, "God did it, so can we!" 

I apologize if I'm coming off as a d-bag, but the above are worth taking into consideration.

Oh. And on the topic of our great nation being founded on Christianity..

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

Good luck on your presentation.


----------



## nitrocan (May 19, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > Chapuunka said:
> ...



1: Just no.
2: America isn't a 100% Christian nation. You will convince people of other religions, or people with no religion otherwise.
3: So you are saying that, if a child, not knowing what it is, shoots someone with a rifle that was lying down on the table, he should be killed? You can't generalize everything like that.


----------



## Chapuunka (May 19, 2010)

nlCuber22 said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > Islam says their God is the same, but it's really not.
> ...





nitrocan said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > Ranzha V. Emodrach said:
> ...



Have either of you actually read the Bible, done the research? I'd like to hear (and by that I mean read) your side in more detail.


----------



## shelley (May 19, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Chapuunka said:
> ...



So you think honor killing is ethical, depending on which country you're in?

Why don't you need to re-evaluate your views? Why is Christianity perfect where other religions and countries are not?


----------



## nitrocan (May 19, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> > Also, we have a separation of church and state for a reason.
> 
> 
> Never said I agreed with that either.



:fp
Go back to 1500s, you conservative fossil.


----------



## Tortin (May 19, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> Tortin said:
> 
> 
> > Also, we have a separation of church and state for a reason.
> ...



How do you not agree with that?



EVH said:


> Okay I lied this is my last post. If Thomas Jefferson wrote the original D of I and wrote what you just said and John Adams had it re-written to what I posted, how would he not have some form of religion that is not Deism. He was Congregationalist if I am correct. Meaning that he goes to church. If he was a Deist why would he go to church?



"Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" That was what John Adams wrote. Also, it wasn't John Adams that changed the wording, it was congress.


----------



## nitrocan (May 19, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> nlCuber22 said:
> 
> 
> > Chapuunka said:
> ...



My emphasis was actually on how you easily can tell if the God of Islam is the same with yours or not. Apparently none of the muslims aren't as smart as you.


----------



## Chapuunka (May 19, 2010)

nitrocan said:


> 1: Just no.
> 2: America isn't a 100% Christian nation. You will convince people of other religions, or people with no religion otherwise.
> 3: So you are saying that, if a child, not knowing what it is, shoots someone with a rifle that was lying down on the table, he should be killed? You can't generalize everything like that.



1. Ok, that won't get anywhere.

2. I'm not concerned with it being 100%; I'm concerned with the fact that a majority of the citizens will say they believe in the Christian God, Bible, etc. (Correct me if I'm wrong?)

3. This is very situational, I assumed that was obvious.


----------



## goatseforever (May 19, 2010)

Your argument is weak if you need to base it upon a work of fiction and what your imaginary friend says is right.


----------



## shelley (May 19, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> I'm not concerned with it being 100%; I'm concerned with the fact that a majority of the citizens will say they believe in the Christian God, Bible, etc. (Correct me if I'm wrong?)



Nobody is arguing that the majority of Americans are Christian. The problem is *it has nothing to do with your argument*.

Lose the biblical arguments. It's completely possible to argue the pros and cons of the death penalty without touching on the subject of religion. You just need to expand your worldview and critical thinking skills.


----------



## Drax (May 19, 2010)

[email protected]

anyway:
Yeah, get rid of the christian/religious appeals, there shouldn't be any in a persuasive topic because the reader might not follow that specific religion. Plus it makes for a much weaker argument because of that

And put in more hard facts/statistics.

Good luck on the presentation tho


----------



## Brett (May 19, 2010)

Argument against: Why do you want a government that is strong enough to kill it's own citizens?


----------



## Tortin (May 19, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > 1: Just no.
> ...



2. It doesn't matter what the majority wants if it goes against the constitution. Are you going to discriminate against minorities because they don't matter as much as you?


----------



## MichaelP. (May 19, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> - killing people is unethical!
> The Bible clearly states in Leviticus 24:17 that "Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death." The Christian God also killed many unrighteous people (ex. Sodom & Gomorrah).



I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.


----------



## nitrocan (May 19, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > 1: Just no.
> ...



So you're OK with racial discrimination. Good to know.


----------



## Neo63 (May 19, 2010)

Brett said:


> Argument against: Why do you want a government that is strong enough to kill it's own citizens?



Because it would also be strong enough to kill the soldiers of the other country if it's at war. Which country isn't strong enough to kill it's own citizens?


----------



## Feryll (May 19, 2010)

Wow, never seen a thread with 53 replies in less than 3/4 of an hour.

And I called this.



Feryll said:


> inb4 GIANT FLAMES OF WAR!!


----------



## MichaelP. (May 19, 2010)

Neo63 said:


> Brett said:
> 
> 
> > Argument against: Why do you want a government that is strong enough to kill it's own citizens?
> ...



The Most Weakest Country I googled "the weakest country" and that came up. I though it was to funny to give up.


----------



## Brett (May 19, 2010)

Neo63 said:


> Brett said:
> 
> 
> > Argument against: Why do you want a government that is strong enough to kill it's own citizens?
> ...



So the only need for a big government is to protect us from other big governments?


----------



## Chapuunka (May 19, 2010)

zachtastic said:


> 1. If felons are given the choice, it is no longer a punishment.
> 2. ethically correct (according to the christian bible)- playing god.
> 3. humane- slightest error in dosage can cause a painful death.
> 4. cost-effective- when a person is sentenced to the d.p. they are immediately given the opportunity to appeal. This tends to prolong the process for a number of years, wasting more money to the taxpayers than life in prison.
> ...



1. Either way you're losing your life; still looks like punishment to me.

2. As a Christian, I go by the Bible, and that's what is says, so I should obey.

3. I'd like to think those responsible are better than that. But that's out of my hands and not the issue.

4. That's more of an issue in the courts than the original issue.

5. I haven't seen these studies, so I'm obviously going to go with the one that supports my argument.

And thanks for being nice about it.




nitrocan said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > nlCuber22 said:
> ...



Islam teachings are very different from Christian teachings, so their Gods would be different as well.




shelley said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > shelley said:
> ...



I never said it was ethical; my perception of ethical would be adhering to the Bible and Christianity, and having a country full of not-Christians would therefore be unethical anyway. And of course being a member of a religion I would find it perfect for everyone, although I'm not telling you what to do.


----------



## Neo63 (May 19, 2010)

MichaelP. said:


> Neo63 said:
> 
> 
> > Brett said:
> ...



That was hilarious...


Spoiler



and slightly offending to whoever wrote one of the replies, Tibet was never a country and never will be.


 IMO Vatican City would be the weakest country just cuz it is so tiny and completely surrounded by Italy. I heard there are only one policeman, lol

But my point still stands, it doesn't take an army to kill one person.



Brett said:


> Neo63 said:
> 
> 
> > Brett said:
> ...



That was never my point, I was simply answering the question. Of course that's not the only need for a government. Governments exist to organize and manage things, as well as protection.


----------



## Chapuunka (May 19, 2010)

Tortin said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > nitrocan said:
> ...



I'm not discriminating, but choosing who I'm going to appeal to because I'm obviously not going to please everyone.


----------



## Kirjava (May 19, 2010)

Feryll said:


> Wow, never seen a thread with 53 replies in less than 3/4 of an hour.




lurk moar


----------



## nitrocan (May 19, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > Chapuunka said:
> ...



I'm sure nobody noticed that. Nice find!


----------



## Jai (May 19, 2010)

If you're looking for a decent list of arguments, check this out. I found that site to be quite helpful when I had to do a presentation on capital punishment.


----------



## shelley (May 19, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> I never said it was ethical; my perception of ethical would be adhering to the Bible and Christianity, and having a country full of not-Christians would therefore be unethical anyway. And of course being a member of a religion I would find it perfect for everyone, although I'm not telling you what to do.



You are aware that adherents of other religions have the exact same view regarding your beliefs and way of life? What makes you more correct than them?


----------



## Tortin (May 19, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> 1. Either way you're losing your life; still looks like punishment to me.
> 
> *2. As a Christian, I go by the Bible, and that's what is says, so I should obey.*
> 
> ...



So you're gonna force that on others as well?
Right, use the wrong, outdated sources to support your arguments and ignore everything else.



Chapuunka said:


> Islam teachings are very different from Christian teachings, so their Gods would be different as well.



:fp Does that mean the Catholics and Evangelists and Protestants are diff--oh wait.


----------



## Brett (May 19, 2010)

> That was never my point, I was simply answering the question. Of course that's not the only need for a government. Governments exist to organize and manage things, as well as protection.


Manage things like what? I can't think of anything the free market can't provide better than the government can.


----------



## Neo63 (May 19, 2010)

Brett said:


> > That was never my point, I was simply answering the question. Of course that's not the only need for a government. Governments exist to organize and manage things, as well as protection.
> 
> 
> Manage things like what? I can't think of anything the free market can't provide better than the government can.



Things like resources, healthcare (Canada ftw ) etc.


----------



## Chapuunka (May 19, 2010)

shelley said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > I never said it was ethical; my perception of ethical would be adhering to the Bible and Christianity, and having a country full of not-Christians would therefore be unethical anyway. And of course being a member of a religion I would find it perfect for everyone, although I'm not telling you what to do.
> ...



I'm not here to debate my religion, though I'd be more than happy to if you want to go there.

For your question, faith is one of the bigger reasons, but like I said, that's not the issue being discussed in my presentation.


----------



## Chapuunka (May 19, 2010)

Tortin said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Either way you're losing your life; still looks like punishment to me.
> ...



1. I'm not *forcing* it on anyone. I'm providing my argument. Don't put words in my mouth.

2. They're variations on Christianity, whereas Islam is completely different from Christianity.


----------



## Tyson (May 19, 2010)

Why is anyone bothering to help this guy?


----------



## iasimp1997 (May 19, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > America was founded as a Christian nation (under *God*)
> ...



"... One nation, *under God* . . ."


This community is so determined to undermine religious people. I don't know why.
The things that are said on these threads offend me and **** me off.
I think this discussion was meant to be about the death penalty, not about religion. Chapuunka's original post had religious mentions in it. So does that make this thread a discussion about religion? No.


----------



## BigGreen (May 19, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> Arguments against:
> - screw the Bible/Christianity!
> *America was founded as a Christian nation (under God*)


Art. 11 of Treaty of Tripoli


> Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.


----------



## Tortin (May 19, 2010)

iasimp1997 said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > Chapuunka said:
> ...



Pledge of Allegiance, right? That was actually added in 1954.


----------



## iasimp1997 (May 19, 2010)

Tortin said:


> iasimp1997 said:
> 
> 
> > Kirjava said:
> ...



LOLOL


----------



## Chapuunka (May 19, 2010)

> This community is so determined to undermine religious people. I don't know why.
> The things that are said on these threads offend me and **** me off.
> I think this discussion was meant to be about the death penalty, not about religion. Chapuunka's original post had religious mentions in it. So does that make this thread a discussion about religion? No.



I agree. But I'm more than happy to talk to anybody about my religious choices via PM.


----------



## koreancuber (May 19, 2010)

holy shamolly! 700 views in 1 hour! That's a record.

OT: this is just dumb


----------



## Escher (May 19, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> Stance: pro-death penalty; specifically, it should be legal but felons should get the choice between death and life imprisonment. Only to be used for serious felonies such as murder.



Giving felons a choice renders it completely useless. What %age of people do you think would *really* choose to go through with it? And if there has been a study done that shows that a reasonable percentage of people would choose death penalty; if it's based on a simple questionnaire then it's meaningless. There is a big difference between saying 'I'd rather die in that situation' than 'I want to die' and having that wish fulfilled.

Besides, I believe life imprisonment is a far worse punishment than the death penalty, particularly given the standards of US prisons.



> - ethically correct (biblically)


Bible =/= source of moral ethics for the state.



> - humane


I don't really understand this except as a kind of 'living through life imprisonment is worse' argument, please elaborate.



> - cost-effective (vs life imprisonment)


Perhaps economically. I think from an ethical standpoint it's morally costly for a country to allow the state to end lives of citizens. Even then, somebody already mentioned the appeals system being costly.



> - deters future criminals


Incorrect. It just gives them incentive to be better criminals.



> - past precedents and other history support it


Hey, just like slavery! 



> Arguments against:
> - screw the Bible/Christianity!
> America was founded as a Christian nation (under *God*)


You're just wrong. Constitutionally the US is secular.



> - killing people is inhumane!
> Most states use a method of lethal injection that is created to be painless


'most' - not all. Also, various studies have been done into the lethal injection that found that it actually caused incredible pain. Also as someone mentioned earlier, a slight variation in dosage in an actually painless injection can cause pain.



> - killing people is unethical!
> The Bible clearly states in Leviticus 24:17 that "Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death." The Christian God also killed many unrighteous people (ex. Sodom & Gomorrah).


Jesus says that the greatest commandments are "love God with all your mind, body, heart and soul, and love your neighbour as you love yourself". I don't think that the application of the death penalty is logically compatible with 'loving your neighbour'. One of the Ten Commandments is 'thou shalt not kill'. 

This is beside the point anyway, the Bible has nothing to do with US Law and never should.



> - doesn't actually deter other criminals!
> A study was preformed in 1973 by Isaac Ehrlich that showed for every inmate executed, 7 lives were saved because of criminals unwilling to face the consequences


One study in the 70s does not a good point make. There have been hundreds of studies (much more recent ones) supporting the counter argument.



> - it's hypocritical--you're killing people too!
> The law is against people *murdering* other people. Dictionary.com defines murder as, "to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously," but it defines kill as, "to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay."


I believe that lethal injection (or any other method of state execution) - a pre-meditated deprivation of life - is inhumane and barbarous. Therefore for me the Death Penalty is analogous to murder, and I don't agree with murder.



> - screw precedents and history; this is now!
> Much of our law is based upon precedents passed in past court cases


That doesn't really disprove the point (though I don't think the counter itself is that valid), and what extremely important common law cases are based on is much, much more complex and intricate than just precedent.


But yes, I don't believe that the death penalty is logically coherent with a state based upon liberty of citizens and a government that is constitutionally small. Granting the state the right to end lives is the worst thing one can do if you're trying to avoid 'tyranny of the state', as those who wrote the constitution will have been (i.e. Tom Paine) post French Revolution.

Also, I think it contravenes the 8th Amendment.


----------



## RubikMagicPuzzleToy (May 19, 2010)

I don't know if this has already been said, but the cost of using the death penalty is in fact higher than if it was not. If the death penalty is an option as a punishment, the special trials are more costly to the state and those involved than normal ones. Also, it is more expensive to keep prisoners on death row for 20-30 years than to keep them normally behind bars. Prisoners are so rarely executed, the system is too inefficient to manage. I'm too lazy to look up a source right now, but I did a paper on this exact topic (opposite stance) last year. If you need further proof, many states have (somewhat) recently abolished the death penalty because of the economic burden it imposes. 

Also, I really don't want this argument put down just because I didn't provide you with a source, if you really care enough, please look into it yourself, and you'll find it's true. Thanks in advance!


----------



## abr71310 (May 19, 2010)

CubesOfTheWorld said:


> nlCuber22 said:
> 
> 
> > Chapuunka said:
> ...



Fail.
Just fail.
Please... just stop.
I'm ROFLMAOing much too hard.

Let me just say from my multiple conversions (RC --> Christian --> Buddhist --> Muslim --> Carlin), that there is no ONE religion that is almighty and rules over them all.

By simple logic, if this many variations of things happen, SOMEONE HAS TO BE WRONG.

The problem is, none of the mainstream religions will ever admit this.
So, what do we do?

Split into our factions, find our own sense of proper happiness, and stay the hell out of everyone else's way before we start a religion war for no reason.

Remember the Crusades?
That was because the Muslims took over Jerusalem...

Do you really want a modern version of that?
... You fanatics are the same people who f#[email protected] up the world.

Honestly, you serve the world better dead; by infecting us with negative viewpoints about other religions, you incite nothing but hate and violence towards those who do not follow the same views as you.

I wish I said this jokingly or as a playful kind of thing, but seeing as how ignorant you @%%*#!& are, I really hope nobody really young reads this and takes up your fanatical points of view.

Otherwise, we might have another Hitler Youth uprising.
Children are VERY sensitive to this kind of thing.

So for the love of WHICHEVER GOD YOU FOLLOW, STOP THIS STUPIDITY.
Accept the fact that people have other opinions and have knowledge of real facts, and you don't. Please, some of us here have Ph.D's, what do you have? A GRADE 5 DEGREE?
OMG, ITS SO LEET LETS LISTEN TO THE GRADE 5 KID WITH A SOCIAL STUDIES BOOK.

You have to realize something - everything you learn in grade school is meant as a FOUNDATION - the only real stuff you ever learn that is even partially useful in real life is stuff you learn in post-secondary education (trades/apprenticeships/colleges/universities).

Stop pretending you know everything.
You obviously don't.


----------



## iasimp1997 (May 19, 2010)

abr71310 said:


> CubesOfTheWorld said:
> 
> 
> > nlCuber22 said:
> ...


----------



## shelley (May 19, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Chapuunka said:
> ...



Exactly. So leave all the religious arguments out of your presentation. That's the whole point of this discussion. You could have made it easy and revised your arguments after the first few people countered your points, but instead you just continued the religious debate. It has nothing to do with your death penalty argument, so just leave it out!


----------



## JL58 (May 19, 2010)

Against:
- How often do we see creatures on earth killing their own? (it is not the same, we go through a trial and hopefully unbiased judgement)
- How revolting does it feel when dogs, roosters, - pick your mammal - fight their own kind to death? (again, jury judgement is made based on reason and tamed emotions)
- Is there really a scenario under which rationality makes this acceptable? (deterrent, repeated offense, closure for the family)

Pro:
- This is a real deterrent for anyone considering doing the same (it has not really worked anywhere, anytime, mind you)
- Feeling of being righteous, purifying society from evil, increasing the ratio of goodness, always aiming at being better. (wherever you look, this behavior has often been the root cause of mass killings, especially on our Christian side...)
- Beyond the protection of society this brings closure to the victim family. (and how is that different from tornadoes or cancer for the family?)
- Thinking about life eek in prison death might not be so bad after all. Guilt, abuse, lack of any hope could be a worse outcome... (but who's choice is it?)

All in all most countries are going away from death penalty. A few radical ones have not - US, Iran, and a few others included. Actually, is there another industrialized country still carrying it actively? (honest question)


----------



## Joël (May 19, 2010)

Personally, I don't agree with any of the religious arguments, but if the people you are talking to have the same kind of backwards mindset, go for it!


----------



## Joël (May 19, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> Stance: pro-death penalty; specifically, it should be legal but felons should get the choice between death and life imprisonment. *Only to be used for serious felonies such as murder.*





Chapuunka said:


> The Bible clearly states in Leviticus 24:17 that "Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death." The Christian God also killed many unrighteous people (ex. Sodom & Gomorrah).





THE HOLY AND ETHICAL BIBLE said:


> "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."





Chapuunka said:


> 2. As a Christian, I go by the Bible, and that's what is says, so I should obey.



So... As a Christian who goes by the Bible, would you also defend a new law that says homosexuals should be put to death?

Edit: Also, in Leviticus, it doesn't say "Whoever takes a human life shall have the choice between being put to death and life imprisonment". Why even give them a choice if you use the Bible as your ethical guide?


----------



## goatseforever (May 19, 2010)

"Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you." Leviticus 11-12

God apparently hates clams and shrimp as well


----------



## Ton (May 19, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> Points:
> - ethically correct (biblically)


- ethically correct (biblically)

In that case you did not understand the new testament 

The bible as old and a new rules, where in the old testament they refer to physical dead in the new testament it is a spiritual dead.

So the penalty is still dead, but not in this live


----------



## Ton (May 19, 2010)

Joël said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > 2. As a Christian, I go by the Bible, and that's what is says, so I should obey.
> ...



Good point Joel , and I am a Christian, this is exactly when people do not understand the meaning of the Bible and can become mindless. It is very dangerous to use the bible as guide if you do not understand the new testament and its purpose


----------



## shelley (May 19, 2010)

goatseforever said:


> "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you." Leviticus 11-12
> 
> God apparently hates clams and shrimp as well



http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/


----------



## Lorenzo (May 19, 2010)

shelley said:


> goatseforever said:
> 
> 
> > "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you." Leviticus 11-12
> ...



rofl


----------



## Johan444 (May 19, 2010)

Put away all individual responsibility and put it on a book.

Kill in the name of God.

Fundamentalists up in this b****.


----------



## Tyson (May 19, 2010)

In the 1950's I think China would execute a prisoner, and then charge the family for the bullet.

Japan's process might be one of the worst though. See, in China, after your first trial, they give you a second. And after the second, they drag you out and kill you. In Japan, you don't hear about your execution until the day of, and your lawyers and family don't hear about it until afterward.

Really though... I'm not for the death penalty, but if you were going to do it, nitrogen asphyxiation is the way to go.

I don't think the death penalty is a deterrent in the United States. At least in California, you wait too long on death row for anything to really happen. In China where they pretty much kill people all the time, you would probably think twice about trying to smuggle 50 grams of heroin into the country.

How about it's very dangerous to use The Bible as a guide, at all? I actually have a book that tells me the answer to everything. Just don't forget to bring your towel.


----------



## Dene (May 19, 2010)

Lolthread.






Also, to anyone that says The Bible supports the death penalty: The Bible actually makes it clear that _no human_ has the right to take the life of a fellow human. Not under _any circumstances_. Apparently the Pope thinks he's all that and can go against the word of God but I'm not Catholic so screw the Pope.


----------



## hyunchoi98 (May 19, 2010)

JL58 said:


> All in all most countries are going away from death penalty. A few radical ones have not - US, Iran, and a few others included. Actually, is there another industrialized country still carrying it actively? (honest question)



Ummm.....
Korea (south) isn't carrying it actively but
a few people have been sentenced to death here.


----------



## Johannes91 (May 19, 2010)

Dene said:


> Also, to anyone that says The Bible supports the death penalty: The Bible actually makes it clear that _no human_ has the right to take the life of a fellow human. Not under _any circumstances_.


But it does also say that people who do this and that "shall be put to death". The Bible can't contradict itself (don't be ridiculous!), so the only logical conclusion is that people can't kill each other, _unless_ God tells them to.


----------



## jms_gears1 (May 19, 2010)

shelley said:


> The Bible is not the single authoritative source of what is and isn't ethical. And it seems kind of silly that a Christian nation would allow its citizens freedom of religion and value separation of church and state, wouldn't you think?
> 
> Take out all the biblical arguments. They're not relevant. If you want to cite the Bible and Christian values when arguing about the death penalty, does that mean your arguments don't apply to Muslim and Buddhist convicts?



Lets be honest Shelly, does it matter if it does?
How many christians are in jail versus other religions?


----------



## jms_gears1 (May 19, 2010)

Johannes91 said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Also, to anyone that says The Bible supports the death penalty: The Bible actually makes it clear that _no human_ has the right to take the life of a fellow human. Not under _any circumstances_.
> ...



Umm i dont think the new testament says you cant kill anyone. 
If your talking about the ten commandments, those are not actaully commandments anymore, more like strong suggestions i guess you could say.


----------



## qqwref (May 19, 2010)

Well, I'm for the death penalty (perhaps even a mandatory one, for some types of criminal).



Chapuunka said:


> - killing people is inhumane!
> Most states use a method of lethal injection that is created to be painless


Lethal injection is fine if it's done right, but it isn't always :| The protocol ought to be pretty much the same as voluntary euthanasia (in places where that is legal). I think there are potentially better ways to humanely kill someone out there; I know of at least one.



Chapuunka said:


> - killing people is unethical!
> The Bible clearly states in Leviticus 24:17 that "Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death." The Christian God also killed many unrighteous people (ex. Sodom & Gomorrah).


Yeah, funny about that. For a document that states "thou shalt not kill" the Bible is surprisingly willing to have people killed off. And to anyone saying Biblical quotes aren't relevant, for anyone arguing in the USA they definitely are, because we are still a very Christian (and Jewish, if you're quoting the OT) country. There are still very many people in the country who think morality can only be gotten from Bible study.



Chapuunka said:


> - doesn't actually deter other criminals!
> A study was preformed in 1973 by Isaac Ehrlich that showed for every inmate executed, 7 lives were saved because of criminals unwilling to face the consequences


Maybe. It's definitely a better deterrent than imprisonment (even life imprisonment), considering that to many criminals prison life wouldn't be all that bad, and that in some circles being in prison is respected.


----------



## Bryan (May 19, 2010)

Dene said:


> The Bible actually makes it clear that _no human_ has the right to take the life of a fellow human. Not under _any circumstances_.



Genesis 9:6?


----------



## riffz (May 19, 2010)

Every time you reference the Bible your arguments only apply to a handful of people. I'm a christian myself, but don't use it for a school project.


----------



## JL58 (May 19, 2010)

In more generic terms it is amazing that some people need a reference to tell them what to think...


----------



## jms_gears1 (May 19, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Well, I'm for the death penalty (perhaps even a mandatory one, for some types of criminal).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What happens when a homeless person kills someone?
They get 'punished' with shelter, and three meals a day....


----------



## Holger (May 19, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I'm for the death penalty (perhaps even a mandatory one, for some types of criminal).
> ...



Well the solution to this problem could be to help homeless people with food and shelter


----------



## Dene (May 19, 2010)

Johannes91 said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Also, to anyone that says The Bible supports the death penalty: The Bible actually makes it clear that _no human_ has the right to take the life of a fellow human. Not under _any circumstances_.
> ...



And why is it that God cannot be the taker of that life (like he is meant to be for any life)?


----------



## qqwref (May 19, 2010)

Dene said:


> Johannes91 said:
> 
> 
> > Dene said:
> ...


How often do you see God personally killing someone? "Put to death" and "let to die naturally as everyone will" are not the same. Are you gonna suggest that God will personally stone people to death too?


----------



## Johannes91 (May 19, 2010)

Dene said:


> Johannes91 said:
> 
> 
> > Dene said:
> ...


Well He obviously isn't doing it Himself, millions of people who are gay or work on Sundays are living happy long lives.


----------



## Neo63 (May 20, 2010)

"I can sum it up in three words: evolution is a lie"

ROFL nice vid Dene /sarcasm


----------



## clincher (May 20, 2010)

Johannes91 said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Johannes91 said:
> ...


Heh, you haven't changed, still the same Johannes
I missed this place


----------



## Tortin (May 20, 2010)

You should watch the response to that video, Dene.


----------



## Dene (May 20, 2010)

Johannes91 said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Johannes91 said:
> ...



You're right, he _isn't_ doing it himself. Does that suddenly mean that we should? Of course not. The Bible does not say "btw I'm pretty lazy guys so I need you to do my dirty work".

Of course, this is all based on the assumption that God exists and that The Bible is a legitimate source of his will. (But of course Johannes is nice to me and grants me this assumption <3)


----------

