We are the ones who have granted the right to a jury of his peers.

 

As for the bolded- apparently it is your job to decide who lives and who dies.

 

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything you've stated but I have an honest question.

 

Are we deciding who lives and dies when we preform a life saving surgery ? Is it different because with surgery we are attempting to save a life rather than take a life ?

 

Once again, honest question.

We are the ones who have granted the right to a jury of his peers.

 

As for the bolded- apparently it is your job to decide who lives and who dies.

 

How do you figure? Where did I state that?:confused:

 

Though I do think that murders and rapist don't deserve to live...

Eye for eye!

 

Sad thing is it's not even close, if it was he'd have family members getting executed to, not saying he should or anything crazy like that, just saying that nothing can come close to restoring the balance from what this guy did.

 

Yet another argument against retribution and the death penalty. We can never truely restore the unbalance to society that this man caused. The death penalty is simply a means for the victims families, and for society to be able to move forward.

Completely different circumstance.

In both cases you are deciding who lives and who dies.

What makes me scratch my head is that they swab the arm with alcohol before giving the lethal injection... what are they afraid of??? infection?

Good bye and good riddance...

What makes me scratch my head is that they swab the arm with alcohol before giving the lethal injection... what are they afraid of??? infection?

 

Sad thing is that if they didn't it would be considered cruel and unusual punishment somehow.

In both cases you are deciding who lives and who dies.

 

One is trying to save the lives of you and your loved ones and the other is punishing a criminal that has previously committed the terrible act. Doesn't sound even slightly similar to me.

For the people who are not for the death penalty. Just think about this.

 

If someone murdered your children, robbed, raped and stabbed your wife 15 times. Would you still be against it? I personally would want a front row seat for it! If I didn't get to him first!

 

I'm not really for or against the death penalty...but what will killing them achieve? It's not going to bring your child/loved one back. Isn't revenge one of the seven deadly sins?

The support for the death penalty on this thread is shocking. I have no idea where a lot of you get the idea that, if a person commits a crime, it becomes YOUR right to decide if they should live or not. Ironically, many of you are also abortion opponents. Apparently, your respect for natural life is only applicable when it fits your political beliefs. I find no reason why we, as humans, have the ability to correctly decide who is fit for life or not.

It IS my right. It is my right as a part of a democratic society to have justice carried out upon those who would violate our laws and put us in danger of life and/or property. The punishment for taking a life is (in some cases) the taking of your own life. In those instances, the person is fairly judged by a jury and sentenced to die. Simply put, some crimes are clearly deserving of death.

 

The abortion argument doesn't apply, since that concerns innocent life. It's night and day; so no comparison can be drawn between the two.

I just started a thread on this. I'm against the death penalty in general, but this situation is an exception for me for several reasons, primarily because its what Chapman wants.

 

If that's the case are you cool with euthanasia?

One is trying to save the lives of you and your loved ones and the other is punishing a criminal that has previously committed the terrible act. Doesn't sound even slightly similar to me.

In the sense of choosing who lives and who dies it is exactly the same. And that is what I was commenting about.

I don't really see how the abortion argument isn't applicable. It is my understanding that nobody on this earth is god, so how can the people on this earth decide who gets to live and who doesn't, especially if you are a person of faith. It seems to me that this would apply in both circumstances. If I remember correctly, this should apply to Catholics especially, isn't the church staunchly against the death penalty, taking the stance that humans don't decide life, God does.

I'm not really for or against the death penalty...but what will killing them achieve? It's not going to bring your child/loved one back. Isn't revenge one of the seven deadly sins?

 

IMO what would killing him achieve? Nothing would ever replace my children, but I would have the feeling knowing that atleast he paid for what he done, with his life and burn in :fire:

 

If this had happed to your children and wife how would you feel? Would you forgive him?

I don't really see how the abortion argument isn't applicable. It is my understanding that nobody on this earth is god, so how can the people on this earth decide who gets to live and who doesn't, especially if you are a person of faith.

Because God gave us enough good sense to be able to tell the difference between an innocent child and a cold-blooded adult killer.