Death Penalty

[LibertiORDeth]

I have been hearing recently people say that they cannot believe that Mike Huckabee is for the death penalty, since he is a Christian, and a Baptist Preacher, yet I see no reason for the two not to go hand in hand. I am a Christian, and believe in it, and so do most Christians that I know.

[steph3n]

luke, I used to be a big advocate and in the sense that someone is guilty I can agree
but too much today people are being railroaded into the death penalty not meeting our requirements much less those of God, and many times pan out to be innocent or in serious doubt

[iloveronpaul]

"Betty has gone too far. Killing is wrong, and bad. There should be a new, stronger word for killing like badwrong or badong. YES, killing is badong. From this moment, I will stand for the opposite of killing, gnodab."

[LibertiORDeth]

I remember a serial rapist/killer who was given life in prison because he confessed. He should have been shot on the spot!

[Hope]

Really? The Bible says rape is fine as long as the rapist pays her father off afterward. Who says he should have gone to prison at all?

[LibertiORDeth]

Really? The Bible says rape is fine as long as the rapist pays her father off afterward. Who says he should have gone to prison at all?

You want to give me a quote on that?

[Hope]

You want to give me a quote on that?

Sure thing. This is from the NIV:

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and he rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

Deut. 22:28-29

[pcosmar]

I am not morally against it. I believe it has it's place, however, I believe that our justice system is broken and corrupted.
I am no longer in favor of the Death penalty in most cases.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/

209 innocent people so far.

[LibertiORDeth]

Sure thing. This is from the NIV:

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and he rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

Deut. 22:28-29

Ok this does not seem unreasonable to me, if a man sins and rapes a girl, he has to marry her. Is that wrong? That is not condoning rape, nor does he only have to pay off her dad as you said.

[LibertiORDeth]

And this is old testament, which we do not follow anymore.

[FreeTraveler]

I don't trust the clowns running things to get anything right. Who's to say they won't decide you did something worth them killing you for?

Treason, for example, is a capital offense... do you want Rudy deciding if you're guilty of that or not?

[Unspun]

Is it ever wrong to kill another human being?

If normal citizens can't do it, neither should the state.

[InRonWeTrust]

I'm with Ron on this one. It's too easy to make a mistake, and it's the one mistake that can never be taken back.

[LibertiORDeth]

So Ron Paul is against it also? Never heard that.

Would you rather be paying 20k a year for someone who has life in prison, if they are deserving of the death penalty.

[Hope]

Ok this does not seem unreasonable to me, if a man sins and rapes a girl, he has to marry her. Is that wrong? That is not condoning rape, nor does he only have to pay off her dad as you said.

Of course it's wrong. It's batshit insane. Forcing the victim of rape to marry the monster who raped is about one of the lowest religious edicts you could dream up. It's basically treating her like cattle -- he's paying off the father for the "goods" he stole and then he gets to marry her on top of it all, putting him in line to inherit. Imagine a culture where men raced to see who could rape the prettiest girl in town first. Bonus points if her daddy is rich!

I lol'd at your OT comment. I spent eighteen years in church and two years studying the Bible at college. If you expect me to take that at face-value and ignore all the evidence to the contrary, you must think I'm a complete stranger to your religion.

[LibertiORDeth]

Of course it's wrong. It's batshit insane. Forcing the victim of rape to marry the monster who raped is about one of the lowest religious edicts you could dream up. It's basically treating her like cattle -- he's paying off the father for the "goods" he stole and then he gets to marry her on top of it all, putting him in line to inherit. Imagine a culture where men raced to see who could rape the prettiest girl in town first. Bonus points if her daddy is rich!

I lol'd at your OT comment. I spent eighteen years in church and two years studying the Bible at college. If you expect me to take that at face-value and ignore all the evidence to the contrary, you must think I'm a complete stranger to your religion.

*sigh* yes I guess your right at least about the first paragraph. Im not very good at debating adults since im only 15.

[Hope]

Also, where in the New Testament is the death penalty condoned?

[LibertiORDeth]

Also, where in the New Testament is the death penalty condoned?

I dont know.

[fortilite]

Why should the government have the right to kill? I support the use of lethal force in the prevention of a happening crime, but only by the victims of the crime and only if they gave a chance for surrender.

[steph3n]

in addition it is now more expensive to go through the death penalty process then life in prison!

[Hope]

*sigh* yes I guess your right at least about the first paragraph. Im not very good at debating adults since im only 15.

It's okay -- they say arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded. :P It's so easy for things to be taken the wrong way or for things to get out of hand.

To answer your earlier question, Ron Paul supported the death penalty for most of his time on Capitol Hill. He changed his mind, though, because he said he realized how corrupt government is and how unfair our justice system is. He said that it isn't right that the rich go free even when everyone knows they're guilty while poor people are not given proper defense and put to death left and right. It also actually costs much more to put someone to death than keep them in prison for life because of the cost of their appeals and such.

I'm for the death penalty and think it should be used even more than it is, though. I think Ron is wrong on this one, to argue that because some people aren't fairly sentenced therefore we shouldn't have the death penalty just doesn't make sense. With that logic, we shouldn't try ANYONE by jury because there's always a slim chance we could be incarcerating innocent people. You can't give a man sixty years of his life back anymore than you can bring someone back from the dead. In either case, it's inevitable that some people will be wrongly convicted...but to muzzle the justice system because of that is just folly and will breed more violence towards the country's citizens, IMHO. But then, I disagree with a lot of the way our justice system is run, so...

Edited to add, I think the, "Does the average person have that right? No? Then the gov't shouldn't," argument doesn't hold water either. I don't have the right to enslave someone the way prisoners are enslaved, but the government does. I don't have the right to put a gun to someone's head and insist they pay a "sales tax" on my goods, but the government does. Unless you're an anarchist, there are bound to be things the gov't can do that individual citizens cannot.

[LibertiORDeth]

It's okay -- they say arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded. :P It's so easy for things to be taken the wrong way or for things to get out of hand.

To answer your earlier question, Ron Paul supported the death penalty for most of his time on Capitol Hill. He changed his mind, though, because he said he realized how corrupt government is and how unfair our justice system is. He said that it isn't right that the rich go free even when everyone knows they're guilty while poor people are not given proper defense and put to death left and right. It also actually costs much more to put someone to death than keep them in prison for life because of the cost of their appeals and such.

I'm for the death penalty and think it should be used even more than it is, though. I think Ron is wrong on this one, to argue that because some people aren't fairly sentenced therefore we shouldn't have the death penalty just doesn't make sense. With that logic, we shouldn't try ANYONE by jury because there's always a slim chance we could be incarcerating innocent people. You can't give a man sixty years of his life back anymore than you can bring someone back from the dead. In either case, it's inevitable that some people will be wrongly convicted...but to muzzle the justice system because of that is just folly and will breed more violence towards the country's citizens, IMHO. But then, I disagree with a lot of the way our justice system is run, so...

I agree with this, however it surprised me that what you said about it costing more to put someone to death then to put someone in for life, but I Guess that is because of the corruptness of the governemt.

[Hope]

I agree with this, however it surprised me that what you said about it costing more to put someone to death then to put someone in for life, but I Guess that is because of the corruptness of the governemt.

I'm not an expert on the death penalty so someone else might be able to answer better than I can, but from what I've read it seems like all the money that's spent comes from the appeals themselves. They're so thorough and the cases are ongoing, the gov't ends up having to pay prosecutors for years to keep up with the prisoner's defense lawyers (in many cases it ends up the convict spends life in prison, racks up a huge amount of tax dollars from the appeals plus housing, and then is put to death in their sixites or seventies). I'm not sure what solution there is to that, except maybe making the death penalty only applicable in cases where there was hard DNA evidence and then limiting their appeals to three total.

[Original_Intent]

Of course it's wrong. It's batshit insane. Forcing the victim of rape to marry the monster who raped is about one of the lowest religious edicts you could dream up. It's basically treating her like cattle -- he's paying off the father for the "goods" he stole and then he gets to marry her on top of it all, putting him in line to inherit. Imagine a culture where men raced to see who could rape the prettiest girl in town first. Bonus points if her daddy is rich!

I lol'd at your OT comment. I spent eighteen years in church and two years studying the Bible at college. If you expect me to take that at face-value and ignore all the evidence to the contrary, you must think I'm a complete stranger to your religion.

This is the problem with the NIV imho.

Here is the KJV, with acouple of verses before the ones you included.


25 ¶ But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die:

26 but unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

27 for he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

28 ¶ If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days

I don't think verse 28 is talking about rape. Notice in verse 25 it specifies that he forced her, which is biblilcal term for rape.

My interpretation of 28 and 29 (notice it says and THEY be found) is if a guy has sex with an unbetrothed virgin, he pays dad 50 shekels of silver and they get married. I could be wrong on this that is my reading of the scripture.

[Hope]

This is the problem with the NIV imho.

Here is the KJV, with acouple of verses before the ones you included.



I don't think verse 28 is talking about rape. Notice in verse 25 it specifies that he forced her, which is biblilcal term for rape.

My interpretation of 28 and 29 (notice it says and THEY be found) is if a guy has sex with an unbetrothed virgin, he pays dad 50 shekels of silver and they get married. I could be wrong on this that is my reading of the scripture.

If you study the OT then you realize that unless specifically stated, it is assumed in situations like this that the woman did not give consent...that there was no question of her even having consent, really. This is from my OT Literature class I'm speaking, I'll have to find something online that talks about it.

Rape and other acts of violence are clearly condoned in other parts of the Bible, specifically...

- Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-gilead Judges 21:10-24
- Murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites Numbers 31:7- 18
- More Murder Rape and Pillage Deuteronomy 20:10-14
- Laws of Rape Deuteronomy 22:28-29
- Death to the Rape Victim Deuteronomy 22:23-24
- Rape of Female Captives Deuteronomy 21:10-14

[LibertiORDeth]

This is the problem with the NIV imho.

Here is the KJV, with acouple of verses before the ones you included.



I don't think verse 28 is talking about rape. Notice in verse 25 it specifies that he forced her, which is biblilcal term for rape.

My interpretation of 28 and 29 (notice it says and THEY be found) is if a guy has sex with an unbetrothed virgin, he pays dad 50 shekels of silver and they get married. I could be wrong on this that is my reading of the scripture.

Not bad, you did alot better then me. I agree with you, since otherwise the Bible would be contradicting itself (which I believe is not the case.

[Midnight77]

This is the only thing that I disagree with RP on. But that isn't enough for me to obviously change my vote for someone else. There are some crimes so horrible, that the Death Penalty is the only solution for, in my view. And if you have evidence BEYOND a reasonable doubt, then I feel it should be enacted.

But it costs entirely too much.

[Goldwater Conservative]

If cops kill someone in a firefight, that's one thing, but I have a problem with the systematic execution of anybody. Doesn't mean I don't want to see them drop dead, just that I don't want government having the power to decide, especially when there's a chance the person is actually innocent.

Besides, life in prison is cheaper, and from what I've read many people on death row are more terrified of that prospect than of capital punishment.

[idiom]

RP is against the Death Penalty because we keep killing the wrong people.

Also with the rape in the field town thing, if the rape occurs in a field it is assumed she tried to resist but nobody was around to help, thus she is blameless. She gets the benefit of the doubt. The guy gets killed on accusation.

If their are people around and she doesn't resist, and they are caught together then thats considered consensual and the pragmatic thing for both of them is to be married. If she resists then he gets killed.

Its a burden of proof thing. If the person in the next room doesn't hear you being raped then you are being pretty careful about it. (old school huts with curtains for doors)

Again contrast this with Saudi where being raped gets you lashes for being in the wrong place. Or with Greece where rape is just the masculine thing to do.

[lbadragan]

23"If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor's wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. 25"But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26"But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27"When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her.

28"If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, 29then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.
Read very carefully. The key is the status of of the girl. An engaged girl was considered property of the husband. In the first scenario the rapist is put to death because he violated the other man's property. In the second case the girl is not yet engaged so she's still property of her father. The crime is not so serious in this case so the punishement for the rapist is only a fine payable to the father and he's obligated to "marry" the girl he just raped. This is a sickening passage and you really have to read it very loosely to miss the point.

[evadmurd]

Really? The Bible says rape is fine as long as the rapist pays her father off afterward. Who says he should have gone to prison at all?

Mind giving a reference on that?

[priest_of_syrinx]

There should be no government-sponsored killing.

No abortion, no death penalty, and - hopefully - no wars.

[austin356]

I believe in proportional punishment, so yes.

If you steal $1000 from a store owner, you have to pay back that $1,000 and then proportionally what you stole so add another $1000 for a total of $2,000.

If you murder someone you are liable to be murdered twice......... but that is not possible, so we are left with just one.

I also believe it must be unanimous consent by the Judge in the case, the entire Jury, and the victim's family. If any of those three see it is something that should not be instituted in that specific case, then it does not happen. This would keep alive the threat of capital punishment, but it would be sparingly used.

[NewEnd]

Ok this does not seem unreasonable to me, if a man sins and rapes a girl, he has to marry her. Is that wrong? That is not condoning rape, nor does he only have to pay off her dad as you said.

are you fucking serious?

Punishment for a rapist is a lifetime of raping the victim

are you fucking serious?

[NewEnd]

Mind giving a reference on that?

he already did, on page 1:


Sure thing. This is from the NIV:

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and he rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

Deut. 22:28-29

On topic:

I am pro death penalty.