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

 

Ding Ding Ding.:dancingpa

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

 

Innocent people have been convicted before and I'm sure at some point during the long history of the death penalty innocent people have been put to death. I guess god slipped up on those. Furthermore, a lot of innocent people have been killed, "in the name of god".

Innocent people have been convicted before and I'm sure at some point during the long history of the death penalty innocent people have been put to death. I guess god slipped up on those. Furthermore, a lot of innocent people have been killed, "in the name of god".

 

God doesn't slip, people do.

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?

 

What does not killing them achieve ?

 

If nothing else, not killing this man would cost tax payers thousands of dollars to feed and house a man who killed two innocent children and attempted to kill their mother.

 

Here's another scenario and I know this is a reach but is a possibility none the less.

 

What if this man were to escape from prison (as odd as it is, it does happen occasionally) ? Who's to say that he wouldn't kill more innocent people ?

 

I really believe that this is something someone this terrible deserves. If killing him makes one person of the affected family or community feel better or have some closure on the situation then I'm all for it. Letting the man live accomplishes nothing for anyone involved.

God doesn't slip, people do.

 

I thought he gave us the good sense to determine innocence and right to life.

I thought he gave us the good sense to determine innocence and right to life.

 

And recognize when someone has forefitted that right when they've taken the life of another, mistakes happen, that's the world we live in. And if you've read all of the posts you'd know that I arleady said that's my beef with the death penalty.

Yes, I agree with most posters. At least he is asking for this and knows he is getting what he deserves. He gets three shots. 1) sleep 2) stops lungs 3) stops heart. I thought a stabbing would be more likely.

Who are you to say that? How in the world can you objectively and definitively say whether or not someone "deserves" to live?

 

Why did he decide the 2 kids should die? Hang this fool in font of everyone to watch.

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

 

:thumb::thumb:For people who are against this....I would like to ask a question. If those were your children that this man killled...would you feel differently?

If you came home and found someone in your house about to kill your family and you had the opportunity to stop them by shooting them would you?

There is a purpose in self-defense- protecting your life and the lives of your family. In killing someone after the act, what purpose does that serve? Revenge? How is that moral?

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?

:lol: Good question.

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 am not talking about the legal right. I am talking in terms of morality. If you are saying that you are morally correct due to your legal right, then I assume that you believe that abortion doctors have done no wrong.

 

IMO, the only time that the death penalty is acceptable is when society has NO other means of protecting society from the criminal.

 

The abortion argument absolutely applies. How do you have the power to determine what is innocent and what is not? My opposition to birth control, abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, murder, etc. is from the idea that God grants us life and God takes away our earthly life.

God doesn't slip, people do.

All the more reason to be against the human taking of life....

What does not killing them achieve ?

 

If nothing else, not killing this man would cost tax payers thousands of dollars to feed and house a man who killed two innocent children and attempted to kill their mother.

 

Here's another scenario and I know this is a reach but is a possibility none the less.

 

What if this man were to escape from prison (as odd as it is, it does happen occasionally) ? Who's to say that he wouldn't kill more innocent people ?

 

I really believe that this is something someone this terrible deserves. If killing him makes one person of the affected family or community feel better or have some closure on the situation then I'm all for it. Letting the man live accomplishes nothing for anyone involved.

First of all, in most cases, the death penalty is more expensive then life in prison. If you want the numbers, then I will give them to you gladly.

 

As for escaping prison and killing more, then I find the death penalty to be appropriate. Like I said above, only when society is incapable of protecting itself from the criminal is it OK, simply out of respect for life.

Why did he decide the 2 kids should die? Hang this fool in font of everyone to watch.

His immorality justifies our support of an immoral action?

:thumb::thumb:For people who are against this....I would like to ask a question. If those were your children that this man killled...would you feel differently?

I have no children, but I am against it. If my mother or father or siblings were killed, I don't know how I would feel. I should hope that I pray about it and correct the most moral action- I don't see how murder in return for murder would make me feel better, either.

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.

Good question. I don't view elongating life to be immoral. Imagine getting a gift- using it to its fullest extent would be fine, but throwing it away wouldn't be very respectful. It is when we cut life short that I see a problem.

It's not really "murder" it's more of justice for what was taken from you...

 

I can't believe some people would actually not take any sort of revenge on someone that harmed their family.

 

My family comes first and if anything ever happened to them you can guarantee that I would want that person to suffer and get what's coming to them.

There is a purpose in self-defense- protecting your life and the lives of your family. In killing someone after the act, what purpose does that serve? Revenge? How is that moral?

 

:lol: Good question.

 

I am not talking about the legal right. I am talking in terms of morality. If you are saying that you are morally correct due to your legal right, then I assume that you believe that abortion doctors have done no wrong.

 

IMO, the only time that the death penalty is acceptable is when society has NO other means of protecting society from the criminal.

 

The abortion argument absolutely applies. How do you have the power to determine what is innocent and what is not? My opposition to birth control, abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, murder, etc. is from the idea that God grants us life and God takes away our earthly life.

 

All the more reason to be against the human taking of life....

 

First of all, in most cases, the death penalty is more expensive then life in prison. If you want the numbers, then I will give them to you gladly.

 

As for escaping prison and killing more, then I find the death penalty to be appropriate. Like I said above, only when society is incapable of protecting itself from the criminal is it OK, simply out of respect for life.

 

His immorality justifies our support of an immoral action?

 

I have no children, but I am against it. If my mother or father or siblings were killed, I don't know how I would feel. I should hope that I pray about it and correct the most moral action- I don't see how murder in return for murder would make me feel better, either.

 

Good question. I don't view elongating life to be immoral. Imagine getting a gift- using it to its fullest extent would be fine, but throwing it away wouldn't be very respectful. It is when we cut life short that I see a problem.

 

Why don't you go ahead and comment about post 66 while you're at it. Or post # 40.

Why don't you go ahead and comment about post 66 while you're at it. Or post # 40.

My mistake, I mean to respond to every question posed to me but I must have missed it and/or thought I had hit it already.

It's not our right, it's the decision of a jury of his peers after a fair and speed trial, and after having plead to or found guilty of the crime.

 

I'm torn on the death penalty only because I hate the fact that innocent people, mostly minorities, have been executed when they were innocent.

 

This guy was not innocent, he wasn't even close to innocent. Did he find god, repent, feel any remourse? I don't know and it's not my job to know, that's between him and god.

We are the ones who grant that right to a jury. Like you say, it is "not your job to know" if he repented or feels remorse for his crimes. However, likewise, I don't think it is our job to decide if he should live or not. I feel life in prison is an adequate yet moral prison. It allows him time to repent for his sins, as well as protects society from his wrongdoings. FWIW, I have no problem with 24/7 solitary confinement- I do not think it is cruel and unusual.

And recognize when someone has forefitted that right when they've taken the life of another, mistakes happen, that's the world we live in. And if you've read all of the posts you'd know that I arleady said that's my beef with the death penalty.

I am a believer in God. I do not think that we have been granted the Infinite Wisdom to know when someone has "forfeited that right" to living.

It's not really "murder" it's more of justice for what was taken from you...

 

I can't believe some people would actually not take any sort of revenge on someone that harmed their family.

 

My family comes first and if anything ever happened to them you can guarantee that I would want that person to suffer and get what's coming to them.

How in the world does the suffering of others (even if they are guilty) make you feel better about yourself? Does that not make you the same as the murderer?

There is a purpose in self-defense- protecting your life and the lives of your family. In killing someone after the act, what purpose does that serve? Revenge? How is that moral?

 

It isn't revenage, it is punishment. His punishment for taking the life of two childern is he will lose his life.

It isn't revenage, it is punishment. His punishment for taking the life of two childern is he will lose his life.

 

But what purpose does punishment from humans serve? Obviously, when you punish a child, it is so they learn a lesson. However, the death penalty is a punishment that has no earthly lesson- it ends life.

 

The only punishment that matters is from God above. Our punishment is meaningless and I feel that it is inappropriate- we are in no position to feel who should live and who should die