The death penalty.

[Gunge]

The punishment for killing involves someone killing the person who did the killing, which is killing. It obviously contradicts itself.

I agree most Christians these days would say it's a silly rule.

Incredibly, I'm not going to argue cos I'm undecided but doesn't that equate to the Bible quote about an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth or whatever? If that isn't actually from the Bible I do apologise.... just my satanic leaning showing ignorance of such things.

 

[BeerCat]

We still had the Death Penalty in the UK until the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 became law.:wave:Until then it was still on the statute books for Treason and Piracy on the High Seas.:thumb:Oh, here's a mega-BTW. Shagging the wife of the Prince of Wales is classed as Treason. Think back and you may remember someone called Hewitt?

Put it like this, if Guy Fawkes were alive today i would not be hanging him. :cheers9:

 

[GerritT]

No. A lot of criminals think they won't get caught anyway. So, it's not a preservative.
Second: too expensive.
Third: a Life sentence is good enough.

No more capital punishment, we're not in the middle ages, or in the middle east.

 

[MarkBowie]

No to death penalty, too many ifs and buts whether it is a certain case or not.

However.... if the cause of the OP is due to the cost, how about take away the millions of pounds in privileges and make prisoners earn their keep? Make prison a prison instead of a gladiator camp for criminals.

 

[Gunge]

No to death penalty, too many ifs and buts whether it is a certain case or not.

However.... if the cause of the OP is due to the cost, how about take away the millions of pounds in privileges and make prisoners earn their keep? Make prison a prison instead of a gladiator camp for criminals.

20 hours genuine hard labour a day would soon finish em off anyway. Win win.

 

[simon12]

The punishment for killing involves someone killing the person who did the killing, which is killing. It obviously contradicts itself.

I agree most Christians these days would say it's a silly rule.

Only if you take them as absolutes most modern translations say murder for the offender.

 

[Dutto]

There's a huge logic to Sharia Law punishments for theft, and a few things that the victim has to do before the punishment is even considered!

So, the "Victim" must:

1. Protect things that are know to be valuable.
2. Not tempt anyone to steal something.
3. Only complain of a significant theft.

So, if you leave the keys in a car with the engine running 1. and 2. would apply so the criminal could be let off. Also, the police would activate 3. and not even bother investigating the theft of a pair of socks from a clothesline.

Now we get to the good bit, the punishments and what they really mean! Remember that in the days when the Laws were enacted there were no prosthetics and the people generally lived in small desert communities.

So, convicted of theft:

1. First Time - amputation of left hand. This means that you have to wipe your arse and eat with your right hand. No-one would want to shake hands with you and everyone would see that you are a known and convicted thief.
2. Second Time - amputation of right foot. Limits your mobility but allows you to use a crutch under your right arm-pit.
3. Third Time - amputation of left foot. Stops almost all mobility but you can still feed and wash yourself.
4. Fourth Time - amputation on right hand. You are now the responsibility of your family; who should have brought you up not to steal.
5. Fifth Time - banished to nearest community. I'm now back on topic. Goodness only knows how anyone could still be stealing but an offender is expected to crawl (with no hands and no feet) up to 50 miles across a desert. It's actually a death sentence.

Not being a cruel or vindictive person and not agreeing with the Death Sentence, I would like to nominate a few UK thieves, who are currently sailing around the world in their yachts, for just the first three of these punishments.

 

[Ken L]

Weird how so many people want to embrace savagery in response to criminality and interesting to note how many of those people are inspired by the same force that is tearing large parts of the world apart and causing untold death and destruction - Religion.

 

[Dutto]

Weird how so many people want to embrace savagery in response to criminality and interesting to note how many of those people are inspired by the same force that is tearing large parts of the world apart and causing untold death and destruction - Religion.

I can't prove it, but I reckon that "Religion" comes in third after "Old Age" and "Disease" as the killer of mankind. If you look back through history, almost every war was fought with "God" supporting both sides of the conflict; even if the war was over territory, politics or sheer greed.

The problem with almost all religions is that the person who started it ALWAYS taught the tolerance of other religions!

In synopsis, their is nothing wrong with the teachings of almost all "Religions" right up until "people" get involved and reinterpret them for their own personal aggrandisement. (Remember the man in our own time who shouted "We will NEVER surrender!" and kept a conflict going for another twenty odd years?)

 

[Thumper]

Only if you take them as absolutes most modern translations say murder for the offender.

That's only an argument if you draw some arbitrary distinction between murder by the state and murder by an individual. Logically speaking, they are morally equivalent.

 

[Thumper]

Incredibly, I'm not going to argue cos I'm undecided but doesn't that equate to the Bible quote about an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth or whatever? If that isn't actually from the Bible I do apologise.... just my satanic leaning showing ignorance of such things.

That is from the bible, though it's the old testament (the tanakh, or Hebrew bible). I'm not sure what you mean by "equates to", though? It's basically the same idea, if that's what you mean. A like-for-like punishment.

 

[simon12]

That's only an argument if you draw some arbitrary distinction between murder by the state and murder by an individual. Logically speaking, they are morally equivalent.

The state killing a murderer to protect other citizens is not morally the same as murder any more than taxation is morally the same as theft, I don't understand your logic.

 

[simon12]

The old Testament law is most clear in Leviticus 15
"17 r“Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. 18 sWhoever takes an animal's life shall make it good, life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, tas he has done it shall be done to him, 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. "

Though in Exodus 22 it shows not all punishments are equal
"1“If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall repay five oxen for an ox, and cfour sheep for a sheep. 2 2 If a thief is found dbreaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, 3 but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He3 shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then ehe shall be sold for his theft. 4 If the stolen beast fis found alive in his possession, whether it is an ox or a donkey or a sheep, ghe shall pay double.
5 “If a man causes a field or vineyard to be grazed over, or lets his beast loose and it feeds in another man's field, he shall make restitution from the best in his own field and in his own vineyard."

The context for Christians today is in Mathew 5
"38 h“You have heard that it was said, y‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, zDo not resist the one who is evil. But aif anyone bslaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And zif anyone would sue you and take your tunic,8 let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone cforces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 dGive to the one who begs from you, and edo not refuse the one who would borrow from you."

 

[BarnBrian]

I was working offshore some years ago when one of our guys was informed that his daughter had been raped and murdered. In the conversations that followed I stated that if this had been my daughter, I would not rest until I had found and killed the murderer. Rightly or wrongly I would stand by that to this day.

 

[Linalmeemow]

I was working offshore some years ago when one of our guys was informed that his daughter had been raped and murdered. In the conversations that followed I stated that if this had been my daughter, I would not rest until I had found and killed the murderer. Rightly or wrongly I would stand by that to this day.

And I can understand wanting revenge as a parent here, but that's different to wanting the death penalty in my opinion.

 

[Thumper]

The state killing a murderer to protect other citizens is not morally the same as murder

Yes it is. Logically, how is it different?

 

[Thumper]

I was working offshore some years ago when one of our guys was informed that his daughter had been raped and murdered. In the conversations that followed I stated that if this had been my daughter, I would not rest until I had found and killed the murderer. Rightly or wrongly I would stand by that to this day.

Perfectly understandable. My sister was raped, and to this day she won't tell me who did it because she knows I would put the bloke in hospital. It's perfectly human to want revenge, and I am human. But viewed objectively, it's not moral.

 

[BeerCat]

The police cannot even tell you what is acceptable force in the defense of your own home. And if you do have the audacity to use violence against a violent intruder you can be sure they will come down upon you like a ton of bricks.

 

[Gunge]

So maybe the fate of a murderer should be decided by the victim's family, and not judge and jury?

 

[Linalmeemow]

So maybe the fate of a murderer should be decided by the victim's family, and not judge and jury?

Nope, unless they accept the same revenge-sentence from the family of the murderer they decide to have murdered.