the essence of justice (1 Viewer)

[gibby]

death penalty is not for curbing crime... it is for serving justice... and justice in the manner of having the maximum penalty possible to be inflicted upon the convicted murderer. yes, it is a primitive kind of punishment but it is the only one that serves justice rightly well for the families and Friends of the aggrieved or the victim.

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

death penalty is not for curbing crime... it is for serving justice... and justice in the manner of having the maximum penalty possible to be inflicted upon the convicted murderer. yes, it is a primitive kind of punishment but it is the only one that serves justice rightly well for the families and Friends of the aggrieved or the victim.

Now hold on it isnt nessasarily the maximum punishment...Im sure youve heard of life in prison being not only worse but also less expensive...those are 2 pluses. besides what about right to life? in the DOI we all have inalienable rights endowed to us by our Creator of them being LIFE...there wasnt any 'but' or 'however' clauses. Furthermore it kind of demeans the sanctity of life dont you think? Lastly what about if the person after 20 years in jail or soemthing gets proved inocent then s/he is set free, now if that person was killed, i dunno about you but i wouldnt be sleeping well for a while.

 

[gibby]

Now hold on it isnt nessasarily the maximum punishment...Im sure youve heard of life in prison being not only worse but also less expensive...those are 2 pluses. besides what about right to life? in the DOI we all have inalienable rights endowed to us by our Creator of them being LIFE...there wasnt any 'but' or 'however' clauses. Furthermore it kind of demeans the sanctity of life dont you think? Lastly what about if the person after 20 years in jail or soemthing gets proved inocent then s/he is set free, now if that person was killed, i dunno about you but i wouldnt be sleeping well for a while.

my dear blizzard, although i respect your opinion,i do not find it original. the right to life has always been the argument against death penalty... the same hullabaloo's, the sanctity of life, the endowment of this right by the creator, et cetera. serving justice is not determined by how cheap the punishment is, but by the, say, satisfaction guaranteed by the punishment. and i beg to disagree your notion of life imprisonment as cheap as the state provides billions of dollars for the criminals in prison, all just to maintain, the facilities, the foods, the medical necessities, et cetera. how many thousand of dollar does the state appropriate for every convict? 10 to 50 thousand dollars? the right to life in itself was violated the moment the crime was committed. is that not enough reason to take away the life of that criminal? and please, have you not heard of the separation of church and state? please don't bring out the "creator" when speaking of rights. the state was the one who made these rights accessible to its people, the state can take it away for the name of justice served. I'm sure you'll change your views when you experience the same kind of nightmare the families of the aggrieved have of losing someone.

 

[Australianlibertarian]

I despise the death penalty, because we are killing people. I don't care if they are mass murderers, terrorists are sickos. Killing the offender is never going to bring back the victim.

I would rather punish a person by sending him or her to prison for the rest of their life. I would want that person to think about their actions every minute that they breath.

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

my dear blizzard, although i respect your opinion,i do not find it original. the right to life has always been the argument against death penalty... SO the fact that my argument is used a lot, and not orignal reduces the value or weight it carries? the same hullabaloo's, the sanctity of life, the endowment of this right by the creator, et cetera. serving justice is not determined by how cheap the punishment is, but by the, say, satisfaction guaranteed by the punishment. and i beg to disagree your notion of life imprisonment as cheap as the state provides billions of dollars for the criminals in prison, all just to maintain, the facilities, the foods, the medical necessities, et cetera. how many thousand of dollar does the state appropriate for every convict? 10 to 50 thousand dollars? the right to life in itself was violated the moment the crime was committed. is that not enough reason to take away the life of that criminal? OK now hold on two things I always thought that life in prison was more expensive but it IS in fact cheaper, much to my suprise as well, furthermore regardless of the cost justice isnt something that we should be attaching material value to, so therefore I would have to ignore that part of ur statement, this is more of a philosopical arugemnt, not a materialistic one. and please, have you not heard of the separation of church and state? PLEASE note that it doesnt exist in the consitition, or the DOI or any other founding documents. please don't bring out the "creator" when speaking of rights. the state was the one who made these rights accessible to its people, the state can take it away for the name of justice served. LIKE I am trying to say life in prison is a more servere form of justice and more humane. I'm sure you'll change your views when you experience the same kind of nightmare the families of the aggrieved have of losing someone. GOD forbid that happens but right now these are my views, and if a view is absolutly true any experience shouldnt shake the truth of that viewpoint.[/QUOTE]

-My responses are located within the quote-

 

[gibby]

my dear blizzard, although i respect your opinion,i do not find it original. the right to life has always been the argument against death penalty... SO the fact that my argument is used a lot, and not orignal reduces the value or weight it carries? the same hullabaloo's, the sanctity of life, the endowment of this right by the creator, et cetera. serving justice is not determined by how cheap the punishment is, but by the, say, satisfaction guaranteed by the punishment. and i beg to disagree your notion of life imprisonment as cheap as the state provides billions of dollars for the criminals in prison, all just to maintain, the facilities, the foods, the medical necessities, et cetera. how many thousand of dollar does the state appropriate for every convict? 10 to 50 thousand dollars? the right to life in itself was violated the moment the crime was committed. is that not enough reason to take away the life of that criminal? OK now hold on two things I always thought that life in prison was more expensive but it IS in fact cheaper, much to my suprise as well, furthermore regardless of the cost justice isnt something that we should be attaching material value to, so therefore I would have to ignore that part of ur statement, this is more of a philosopical arugemnt, not a materialistic one. and please, have you not heard of the separation of church and state? PLEASE note that it doesnt exist in the consitition, or the DOI or any other founding documents. please don't bring out the "creator" when speaking of rights. the state was the one who made these rights accessible to its people, the state can take it away for the name of justice served. LIKE I am trying to say life in prison is a more servere form of justice and more humane. I'm sure you'll change your views when you experience the same kind of nightmare the families of the aggrieved have of losing someone. GOD forbid that happens but right now these are my views, and if a view is absolutly true any experience shouldnt shake the truth of that viewpoint.[/QUOTE]

-My responses are located within the quote-

if there's one thing i admire about you, it's your conviction my friend.

the fact that the right to life has been argued over and over doesn't add to the gravity of the argument because the other fact also that it has been refuted over and over seems to outweigh its foundations.

i concede to your views of having life imprisonment as the gravest of punishments. that just shows that justice is relative. and the truth for one may not be the truth for the other. the justice for one may not be the justice sought by another. however, it is still generally accepted that death is the gravest of all punishments because it is an infliction to one of the basic human instincts: to survive or live.

still, i admire you protectionist views of having to protect life.

 

[Donkey1499]

It is extremely rare for innocent people to be locked up nowadays. Since our forensics is improving day by day. So if you've got proof that someone committed a murder, then give them death.

And the one's talking about God giving us the right to life. Yes, he gave us a RIGHT, not a privilege. And if someone takes away that right unjustifiably, then they need to lose their life. Then let God sort em' out. Even is the Bible it shows instances where people are executed. A boy was stoned to death just for using God's name in a curse. So, there you have it.

And about the seperation of church and state. The DOI was written BEFORE the Constitution was. Which is why I believe that the seperation of church and state is false, even though SOME seperation is required. Or else you'd get some nut in power that would turn this country into a theocracy, almost Hitler-esque.

 

[gibby]

It is extremely rare for innocent people to be locked up nowadays. Since our forensics is improving day by day. So if you've got proof that someone committed a murder, then give them death.

And the one's talking about God giving us the right to life. Yes, he gave us a RIGHT, not a privilege. And if someone takes away that right unjustifiably, then they need to lose their life. Then let God sort em' out. Even is the Bible it shows instances where people are executed. A boy was stoned to death just for using God's name in a curse. So, there you have it.

And about the seperation of church and state. The DOI was written BEFORE the Constitution was. Which is why I believe that the seperation of church and state is false, even though SOME seperation is required. Or else you'd get some nut in power that would turn this country into a theocracy, almost Hitler-esque.

THE grand jackass, ladies and gentlemen.

 

[Donkey1499]

THE grand jackass, ladies and gentlemen.

You better believe it, slugger!

 

[gibby]

You better believe it, slugger!

yes.

anyways, for you guys out there who wish to pummel me verbally, visit my blogsite: gibbygorres.blogspot.com

leave some comments of you wish

 

[gibby]

You better believe it, slugger!

yes.

anyways, for you guys out there who wish to pummel me verbally, visit my blogsite: gibbygorres.blogspot.com

leave some comments if you wish

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

Ok well some things; my convtions about the death penalty are based on the right to life as I said before, now I would like you to offer me a couple of refuting points about right to life. However as a Christain I am obliged to obey the goverment as long as I dont violate Christsain moral law. There are absolute truths out there, so the maximum justice is one or the other, not both. So therefore I feel that it is our duty as humans to seek the absolute truth. I was thinking about the whole God giving us rights and stuff, and I am thinking God gives us these rights, and usually doesnt take them away. But the state can take them away easily. EX: If i kill someone and am elegible for the death penalty in most cases God wont strike me down right there for my commiting of a mortal sin. However society can either take it away in the name of justice naturally (life in prison) or unnaturally (death penalty). Forensics have improved but still there is still that small chance that the person is innocent, then what someone could be sitting with that persons death on their hands their whole life. Human life is too valuable for us to be taking any chance at that. And like i said before, its cheaper to have someone in prison for life. BTW i like how the donkey thinks about sep. between church and state..seroiusly though, however i do disagree on the death penatly view you have. Now the biblical example you gave doesnt sound familiar to me, the old testament isnt anti-death penalty at all, theres many examples. An eye for an eye, I mean if i kill you i should die. But when Jesus came around he refuted that and said turn the other cheek. And the old testament commandment of "thou Shall Not Kill" in a sense reiforces my anti-death penalty views. But as Christains we can be on either side of the death penalty issue, unlike other hot topic isssues, becuase both sides can be theologically justified thus far. But like i said absolute truths tell me one or the other, and although my faith cant fully explain that yet, secular arguements haev persuaded me to be anti. But Gibby just so u know i used to be pro death penalty.

ok thats all for now

 

[Schweddy]

yes.

anyways, for you guys out there who wish to pummel me verbally, visit my blogsite: gibbygorres.blogspot.com

leave some comments of you wish

gibby,

Put the RSS/ATOM [will end in .rss or xml] feed in your profile and it will link to the latest blog every time you post.

USER CP> Edit Options > Beta RSS feed (very bottom)

back to your regularly schedualed program....