Little Girl Kills Intruders
Out of context: Reply #196
- Started
- Last post
- 261 Responses
- gramme0
what i never understood and probably may never understand, that religious people who believen God is the one to decide over our fate are pro-death penalty, which basically means that people take up the role of God. They put themselves into a position of rising above humanity and lay down its decisions on human beings who in fact are always equal.
anyway, it is a bit philosophical perhaps, gramme, but i just can never find any sense in these sort of human led dogmatic religions.
i need sleep now! g'nite!
:)
Crouwel
(May 2 07, 15:42)I guess it depends to a large degree on what actions we consider to be within the realm of acceptable practice for governments. In other words, I agree that as individuals we never have the right to take another human life. Not even in the case of Kevorkian's aided suicides, but that is another can of worms...however in my opinion: the right to grant or take away life based on huilt or innocence in a case of murder, is within the acceptable realm of jurisdiction for justice systems.
I believe the sentence should be carried out quickly without any torture or prolonging of pain. I think that while prisoners are on death row, we should absolutely exhaust all available resources in trying to rehabilitate them. There are many psychological and religious programs in prisons across the country that work hard to reach these men and women.
I hate the idea that a death penalty may be necessary in order to enforce justice. I do believe though that it is a necessary evil in a corrupt world where murder happens. You would never find me cheering from the sidelines at an execution. You would find me grieving for the tragedy of the crime and the pain of those who lose loved ones. It is not my job to take away the life of a convicted killer, nor to seek vengeance in any way. I think it is a responsibility/burden to be laid exclusively upon the shoulders of the judicial branch of government. I have the utmost respect for those consciencious judges that are still out there, and the horrible weight of the decisions they are often faced with.
So to sum up I think this question is what it comes down to: should governments, instituted by law, be allowed to take away the life of someone who has taken the life of another person?
As I said yesterday, I can see the validity of both points. I have my opinions on the matter, although I am not 100% sure which view is the correct one. I can see reasons based on how one interprets the Bible's take on the sanctity of life that could support either position.
So, you won't hear me calling heresy upon anyone who disagrees with me on this issue. It's certainly a tough one.
Crouwel, just so you know...I studied psychology in college, and my father, who I am very close with, holds a degree in psychology. I understand some things about the human psyche (although I do not claim to be an expert). Where we depart is our belief about human nature, whether people are inherently good or bad. I believe that people are inherently bad, and that good things, really good things like the hungry being fed and people turning the other cheek when insulted or injured, are motivated by an outside spiritual force that enables people to rise above their fallen state. Thus, I believe nobody is too far gone.
Dobs, I meant no condescension by saying I "entertain these discussions." What I mean is that I am willing to engage with you in discussing because I respect you as a person. That's the trouble with the typed word, nuances can't be detected...