• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Death Penalty

Should there be a death penalty?

  • Yes

    Votes: 55 47.0%
  • No

    Votes: 45 38.5%
  • Under certain circumstances, please explain

    Votes: 17 14.5%

  • Total voters
    117
By "liberal-democratic idealism", I mean aiming to achieve a world in which countries are all democratically governed such that elections are free and fair (e.g. the proposition "Toppling down enemy regimes to spread democracy will make the world a better place").

Gotcha. Although, I think taking "liberal" out of the equation would probably make it seem less partisan and fit both Bush and Obama's policies.
 
Gotcha. Although, I think taking "liberal" out of the equation would probably make it seem less partisan and fit both Bush and Obama's policies.
I'm not referring to "liberal" in the American sense though - generally the entire scope of the ideology (ranging from both classical to modern liberalism) favors idealist measures to spread democracy ("liberal-democracy" simply refers to free and fair elections).
 
Who do you think is more likely to get exonerated, the innocent guy sitting on death row for 15 - 20 years, who is guaranteed at least one appeal, but could have many, or the guy sitting on LWOP, who may or may not get an appeal and who many won't care nearly as much about since he is not scheduled to die? Many people only protest executions because it is the DP. There are lots of people who could care less if those same guys they are pushing to not face the DP are innocent or guilty, they simply are against the DP.

So, if the death penalty goes away, people start caring about the LWOP guys right? I mean, the fear of innocents being executed is gone, time to concentrate on the guy rotting in Cell block A right? That's how that works.

Yet, his chances may be increased to getting killed by a fellow inmate if he is LWOP instead of facing the DP. Do you think the other guys in prison will give 2 shakes if the guy is really innocent?
Okay, this fantasy argument has gone on long enough. Do you have proof of your claims about the life expectancy of a prisoner of death row or LWOP? If not, the argument's a fallacy. I proved my point with stats, time for you to ante up.
 
I'm not referring to "liberal" in the American sense though - generally the entire scope of the ideology (ranging from both classical to modern liberalism) favors idealist measures to spread democracy ("liberal-democracy" simply refers to free and fair elections).

I know your intent. Just saying, for the masses, it would be less perceived as partisan if you removed liberal. Just trying to help you out.
 
So, if the death penalty goes away, people start caring about the LWOP guys right? I mean, the fear of innocents being executed is gone, time to concentrate on the guy rotting in Cell block A right? That's how that works.

Some will, but certainly not nearly as many as before since many of the people care nothing about whether the guys actually are innocent or not, but rather just keeping the people from being executed.

Okay, this fantasy argument has gone on long enough. Do you have proof of your claims about the life expectancy of a prisoner of death row or LWOP? If not, the argument's a fallacy. I proved my point with stats, time for you to ante up.

In 2007, 42 total executions took place, 57 prisoners where killed in state prisons. Over 3,300 prisoners died of things other than execution that year. Odds are very good that a prisoner is less likely to be executed than they are to die of something else while in prison.

A person who is awaiting the death penalty has a very good chance of having their case overturned on appeal (67%), non-capitol offenders much less (15%).

Those awaiting the DP in almost every prison in the country are separated from general population and each other. LWOP prisoners are put into general population. Kinda hard to get killed by another prisoner if you have very little to no contact with them.
 
Some will, but certainly not nearly as many as before since many of the people care nothing about whether the guys actually are innocent or not, but rather just keeping the people from being executed.

Wow, that makes no sense at all. So, they care if they die but not if they're innocent? I don't even know how to argue that it's so illogical.

In 2007, 42 total executions took place, 57 prisoners where killed in state prisons. Over 3,300 prisoners died of things other than execution that year. Odds are very good that a prisoner is less likely to be executed than they are to die of something else while in prison.
A person who is awaiting the death penalty has a very good chance of having their case overturned on appeal (67%), non-capitol offenders much less (15%).
Those awaiting the DP in almost every prison in the country are separated from general population and each other. LWOP prisoners are put into general population. Kinda hard to get killed by another prisoner if you have very little to no contact with them.

These are all numbers that involve the death penalty. They would all certainly change if the dp was removed. Defense lawyers and the like would not have to focus on the person that is about to be executed anymore. The cells being used by death row inmates right now, can be used by lwop prisoners. Lwop wings can be opened in prisons now because the need for a death row wing is not needed anymore. To go back to my earlier argument, are you saying that since a prisoner is most likely going to die in prison anyway we should just go ahead and kill them and get it over with? I'll say it again, I think it would be a different story if you were the one on the business end of that logic. Finally, just putting numbers on the screen isn't good enough bud. That's not how it works. You need to provide sources. How do I know you didn't just throw those numbers up on the screen?
 
Some will, but certainly not nearly as many as before since many of the people care nothing about whether the guys actually are innocent or not, but rather just keeping the people from being executed.



In 2007, 42 total executions took place, 57 prisoners where killed in state prisons. Over 3,300 prisoners died of things other than execution that year. Odds are very good that a prisoner is less likely to be executed than they are to die of something else while in prison.

A person who is awaiting the death penalty has a very good chance of having their case overturned on appeal (67%), non-capitol offenders much less (15%).

Those awaiting the DP in almost every prison in the country are separated from general population and each other. LWOP prisoners are put into general population. Kinda hard to get killed by another prisoner if you have very little to no contact with them.

While they are alive they die every die. Every day they have to countdown, worry their appeal will fail, come to terms with inevitability, think WTF is they are innocent, think about the fear of death, what happens? is their a god or afterlife of some type? Every day they die.
 
Wow, that makes no sense at all. So, they care if they die but not if they're innocent? I don't even know how to argue that it's so illogical.

It's not illogical. There are people who don't really care if the people are guilty or innocent who are facing the DP. They will argue just as strongly that a guilty person shouldn't face the DP that they would an innocent person wouldn't face it. After all, most people have no way of knowing for sure if someone about to be executed is guilty or innocent.

You may not agree with them or believe me, but there are people that protest and fight for appeals for DP cases that have no really care whether the person is guilty or innocent. They simply don't believe the person should be executed.

These are all numbers that involve the death penalty. They would all certainly change if the dp was removed. Defense lawyers and the like would not have to focus on the person that is about to be executed anymore. The cells being used by death row inmates right now, can be used by lwop prisoners. Lwop wings can be opened in prisons now because the need for a death row wing is not needed anymore. To go back to my earlier argument, are you saying that since a prisoner is most likely going to die in prison anyway we should just go ahead and kill them and get it over with? I'll say it again, I think it would be a different story if you were the one on the business end of that logic. Finally, just putting numbers on the screen isn't good enough bud. That's not how it works. You need to provide sources. How do I know you didn't just throw those numbers up on the screen?

No, the numbers of those that die in prison that I gave do not include those who were executed for that year.

And I would much rather be in a cell on death row waiting for my appeals by myself, which are very likely to get me free (68% of CP appeals get the person off of death row, many released or a new trial), than in the general population where I could end up dead or someone's bitch with a much smaller chance of getting exonerated (15% of non-CP appeals overturn the original ruling) if I were innocent. I would rather play the odds, particularly if I know I didn't do it.
 
While they are alive they die every die. Every day they have to countdown, worry their appeal will fail, come to terms with inevitability, think WTF is they are innocent, think about the fear of death, what happens? is their a god or afterlife of some type? Every day they die.

Every day they die in prison too if they are facing LWOP. And there is a much smaller chance that they will get their case overturned if they are not facing CP.

Is that right? No, but it is what it is true now. Without the DP, it is not likely that so many people would really care whether a person in jail is innocent or guilty. Some still would, but not nearly as many as do now, and not at nearly the same level of haste in trying to find out whether a person is really innocent.

And I am all for changing the requirements that must be met for a person to get the DP. (Personally, I think the military way should serve as a model for addressing DP and potential DP cases.) But I am not for abolishing the death penalty, even if innocent people are executed. Those same innocent people could die in prison as well. Those same innocent people are still innocent whether they are executed or die of old age in prison because no one believed them.
 
Last edited:
I changed my stance on the dealth penalty within the last couple of years. I used to support it and I think that there are definately people who deserve such a penalty- psychotic and sociopathic type people that commit the most heinous of murders. However, regardless of whether a person deserved it or not, when I hear on the news that a person is scheduled to die at 7PM, it has an effect on me as a citizen- and it just plain doesn't feel right. It makes me feel like there is something I should do to stop it. It seems extremely uncivilized to me.

It sounds silly, but I decided to stop supporting the dealth penalty because it didn't seem fair to ME. I didn't feel like I deserved to be traumatized, knowing that a person was scheduled to die at 7.. then comes the countdown, then the announcement that the person was dead. The whole thing just doesn't seem right.

I also have a problem with the way that the penalty is applied. I don't think it is applied equitably. For instance, I know of two cases in the State of Alabama. Two separate murders, two separate defendants. The difference was the murders took place in adjoining counties. One murder was an execution type shooting where the guy's wife put a hit out on him. The wife got the dealth penalty, the hitman/shooter got life without parole.

In the adjoining county, the murder there was a kidnapping, sexual assault, and dismemberment of a 14 year old girl. This county could not afford to pursue the death penalty and did not seek it. The guy got life without parole. The lady that put the hit out on her husband vs. the guy that raped and dismembered a child. Which one should have gone to death row? Hello? This is an inequitable application of the dealth penalty across two counties within the same state.

And then there is the potential that an innocent person would be (and probably has been) executed. To me, this was the clincher. It isn't worth it to me to take that chance. To many opportunities for error in most cases. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not a stringent enough standard for the death penalty. It should be beyond all doubt that the person was guilty before they are sentenced to die.
 
Last edited:
I changed my stance on the dealth penalty within the last couple of years. I used to support it and I think that there are definately people who deserve such a penalty- psychotic and sociopathic type people that commit the most heinous of murders. However, regardless of whether a person deserved it or not, when I hear on the news that a person is scheduled to die at 7PM, it has an effect on me as a citizen- and it just plain doesn't feel right. It makes me feel like there is something I should do to stop it. It seems extremely uncivilized to me.

It sounds silly, but I decided to stop supporting the dealth penalty because it didn't seem fair to ME. I didn't feel like I deserved to be traumatized, knowing that a person was scheduled to die at 7.. then comes the countdown, then the announcement that the person was dead. The whole thing just doesn't seem right.

I also have a problem with the way that the penalty is applied. I don't think it is applied equitably. For instance, I know of two cases in the State of Alabama. Two separate murders, two separate defendants. The difference was the murders took place in adjoining counties. One murder was an execution type shooting where the guy's wife put a hit out on him. The wife got the dealth penalty, the hitman/shooter got life without parole.

In the adjoining county, the murder there was a kidnapping, sexual assault, and dismemberment of a 14 year old girl. This county could not afford to pursue the death penalty and did not seek it. The guy got life without parole. The lady that put the hit out on her husband vs. the guy that raped and dismembered a child. Which one should have gone to death row? Hello? This is an inequitable application of the dealth penalty across two counties within the same state.

And then there is the potential that an innocent person would be (and probably has been) executed. To me, this was the clincher. It isn't worth it to me to take that chance. To many opportunities for error in most cases. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not a stringent enough standard for the death penalty. It should be beyond all doubt that the person was guilty before they are sentenced to die.

That icky "doesn't feel right" feeling is cited historically as why the DP has been dropped. An argument that goes along with that is if executions were public it would quickly persuade the general public that it is wrong. Movies depict people being excited and happy about executions, but I doubt that is how it happened. Everything I have read is that there was a feeling of dread. Right now we hide everything about an execution. What they do to a prisoner to prep, who the executioner is, etc... did you know that they swab the condenmed's arm with alcohol before they insert the needle? What is the point? It is not like they are going to get an infection. The purpose is to give the execution team a routine to follow, something to think about so they do not get that icky feeling. Just thinking about it makes me want to vomit.
 
It's not illogical. There are people who don't really care if the people are guilty or innocent who are facing the DP. They will argue just as strongly that a guilty person shouldn't face the DP that they would an innocent person wouldn't face it. After all, most people have no way of knowing for sure if someone about to be executed is guilty or innocent.

You may not agree with them or believe me, but there are people that protest and fight for appeals for DP cases that have no really care whether the person is guilty or innocent. They simply don't believe the person should be executed.



No, the numbers of those that die in prison that I gave do not include those who were executed for that year.

And I would much rather be in a cell on death row waiting for my appeals by myself, which are very likely to get me free (68% of CP appeals get the person off of death row, many released or a new trial), than in the general population where I could end up dead or someone's bitch with a much smaller chance of getting exonerated (15% of non-CP appeals overturn the original ruling) if I were innocent. I would rather play the odds, particularly if I know I didn't do it.

Regardless of what you say. You're argument boils down to this. You would rather keep the death penalty simply because if we put people in general population, on the sentence of life without parole, they MIGHT be killed by another inmate. That makes no sense, whatsoever. What a complete and utter disregard for the value of human life. You are viewing human life as an inconvienience and that's wrong. In addition, you STILL have not provided a link to any of the statistics you have posted.
 
Regardless of what you say. You're argument boils down to this. You would rather keep the death penalty simply because if we put people in general population, on the sentence of life without parole, they MIGHT be killed by another inmate. That makes no sense, whatsoever. What a complete and utter disregard for the value of human life. You are viewing human life as an inconvienience and that's wrong. In addition, you STILL have not provided a link to any of the statistics you have posted.

No. I want to keep the death penalty because it is justice. I was refuting the argument that innocent people die from the death penalty. Innocent people die from just from being in prison, so it is a faulty argument.

I have a high regard for human life. But I also take a step back and try not to view everything from an emotional standpoint. I try to deal with facts as much as possible and look at a situation logically. Unfortunately, justice is an abstract concept that involves opinions. I believe that justice is served with the death penalty when we have a lot of evidence that a person is guilty. I would love to see the system changed so that we only execute people for very specific crimes and a very specific amount of evidence, but the "we may execute innocent people" argument does not sway me because we could always put an innocent person in prison for decades, which, for at least some, would be much worse than facing the DP.

Here is some of the links for the info statistics I provided, btw.

Bureau of Justice Statistics - Deaths In Custody Statistical Tables - State Prison Deaths Tables List
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Capital Punishment, 2007 - Statistical Tables
 
No. I want to keep the death penalty because it is justice. I was refuting the argument that innocent people die from the death penalty. Innocent people die from just from being in prison, so it is a faulty argument.

I have a high regard for human life. But I also take a step back and try not to view everything from an emotional standpoint. I try to deal with facts as much as possible and look at a situation logically. Unfortunately, justice is an abstract concept that involves opinions. I believe that justice is served with the death penalty when we have a lot of evidence that a person is guilty. I would love to see the system changed so that we only execute people for very specific crimes and a very specific amount of evidence, but the "we may execute innocent people" argument does not sway me because we could always put an innocent person in prison for decades, which, for at least some, would be much worse than facing the DP.

Here is some of the links for the info statistics I provided, btw.

Bureau of Justice Statistics - Deaths In Custody Statistical Tables - State Prison Deaths Tables List
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Capital Punishment, 2007 - Statistical Tables

The death penalty is justice how? By your logic of "justice", the thing someone does should be done to them. So a rapist should be raped. A thief should have something equivalent stolen from him. A child molester should have his child molested. I could keep going with this. This isn't emotional, its humane and sensible. I guess your opinion of the Iranian gov't chopping hands off for thievery is a given too right?
Your argument about people dying in prison is weak as well. A person that dies in prison is not executed by the gov't, plain and simple. Murders accounted for only 1.5% of deaths in prison in 2002. In that same year, the national murder rate was 5.6%. Its safer to be in a prison. Again, this is a moot point because your argument will always go back to the premise that they may die in prison so why not just kill them anyway.
Finally, if a person went to jail for something they didn't do, where do you think they would rather be? Death row or in general population on a life without parole sentence? If it was me, I'm going with life. Why? If I'm alive, I can still be proven innocent. If I'm on death row, I'm working with a finite amount of time, appeals, and chances. I'll take my chance with the way below national murder rate. On death row, if my chances run out, its 100% positive I'm dying.

United States Crime Rate
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/shsplj.pdf
 
The death penalty is justice how? By your logic of "justice", the thing someone does should be done to them. So a rapist should be raped. A thief should have something equivalent stolen from him. A child molester should have his child molested. I could keep going with this. This isn't emotional, its humane and sensible. I guess your opinion of the Iranian gov't chopping hands off for thievery is a given too right?
Your argument about people dying in prison is weak as well. A person that dies in prison is not executed by the gov't, plain and simple. Murders accounted for only 1.5% of deaths in prison in 2002. In that same year, the national murder rate was 5.6%. Its safer to be in a prison. Again, this is a moot point because your argument will always go back to the premise that they may die in prison so why not just kill them anyway.
Finally, if a person went to jail for something they didn't do, where do you think they would rather be? Death row or in general population on a life without parole sentence? If it was me, I'm going with life. Why? If I'm alive, I can still be proven innocent. If I'm on death row, I'm working with a finite amount of time, appeals, and chances. I'll take my chance with the way below national murder rate. On death row, if my chances run out, its 100% positive I'm dying.

United States Crime Rate
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/shsplj.pdf

The death penalty is justice because some people give up their right to life in order for justice to be served due to the nature of their crimes.

I never once said what my criteria exactly is for someone to receive the DP, so why in the world would you think that I am an "eye for an eye" person? Maybe it is your assumptions on why people support the DP and the reasons for it that are causing the issues. I am quite fine with my argument that there are some things that a person does that deserve death as a punishment.

My argument is that an innocent person on death row (room of their own, little to no contact with other prisoners) is more likely to get their case overturned than an innocent person with a LWOP sentence (living in general population, frequent contact with other, not-so-innocent prisoners).

How do you know that you will live long enough for someone to overturn your case? How do you know you will even get an appeal? How do you know you won't spend 50 or 60 years in prison, waiting for someone to finally find out the truth, and instead you die in prison, never getting to see freedom, likely having some very negative interactions with your fellow prisoners? There is no guarantee either way that you will be found innocent, but your chances are better on death row than not. It likely won't change that much if we did away with the DP.

And, if your appeals run out under LWOP, you are just as dead, it is only going to be a lot longer life in jail.
 
Killing is bad as deemed by society. The societal standard to denote the ugliness of the act is "murder," which signifies premeditation. The awfulness of murder is directly linked to the level-headed, methodical planning of executing a goal to kill.

The purpose of the legal system is to convert values into law with the purpose of ensconcing a value system into a society and culture.

I feel the legalization of hypocritical policy should be avoided, for it debases the value system that decries murder is bad. Legalizing something doesn't make it right; it's merely made legal.

Legalized state killings are murders. In fact, of the two types of murder, i.e., first-degree and second-degree, state murder is the most legally heinous version - first-degree murder, which is done with deliberation.

The ethics that accompany the precept that murder is bad do not disappear b/c a circumstance of murder (state murder) is made legal. It is bad b/c murder is a level of control over individuality that wholly exceeds any other form of oppression.

Capital Punishment is a law based on revenge rather than societal safety; it is the execution of an imprisoned and impotent offender, and, therefore, exceeds government's role to protect and defend.


And if you need more, there is always the argument that there is no coming back from death. A carried out death sentence is final, and, yet, the judicial system is imperfect.

Also, eyewitness unreliability has been well documented. Cases solely based on eyewitness accounts should certainly not lead to death. For examples of the unreliability of eyewitness accounts, go to the below links.


Visual Expert Human Factors: Eyewitness Memory Is Unreliable

Eyes (and Minds) Deceive: Witness Unreliability Casts Doubt on Death Penalty Rulings | Observations, Scientific American Blog Network
 
No. I want to keep the death penalty because it is justice. I was refuting the argument that innocent people die from the death penalty. Innocent people die from just from being in prison, so it is a faulty argument.

But the jail system in general provides significant safety for society at large. There is a real need for jail not just from a government standpoint, but for the individual standpoint as well. There needs to be a system in place through which we can protect the rights and liberties of the individual and a judicial system is part of that. What would happen if we got rid of jails?

Now what about the death penalty. We already have jails. Yes people die in them, there's likely A LOT of reform which needs to also happen with our jail system. Not going to argue against that. But the death penalty is on top of that. What does it offer society? Increased safety? No. Deterrent? No. Saved costs? No. What happens if we get rid of the death penalty? Are people going to go crazy, will there be no way to protect the law abiding citizens of the land? No. The death penalty provides us with nothing functional except higher bills. And it consumes innocent life.

So now we have a system being endorsed which not only provides no net benefit to society on whole, but which in fact costs us more and costs human life (both "guilty" and innocent). And you're argument is "well it's ok to kill these people because people are killed in prisons all the time anyway". Forgive me if I am unswayed by such lackluster logic. Innocent people can and do end in jail as well, we are absent perfect knowledge. Part of this is the power usurped by the courts and laws which give the government much more leverage than they had before. But then your argument is that we should kill them because it's worse to leave them alive for decades in which there could always be a chance of being exonerated and freed on new evidence. Again, lackluster logic.

In the end, there is no rational argument for the death penalty. It's functionally useless, it's expensive, it consumes innocent life. Anyone calling for the overall use of such system must do so with the knowledge that they are advocating the consumption of that innocent life. It's part and parcel with the system.
 
Last edited:
To the bolded: Not in this country. Otherwise, we wouldn't see such a high rate of repeat offenses, reconviction, and reimprisonment after release. I am not sadistic. I do not wish to see a murderer suffer for years, when the just punishment for his crime could be expedient death.

I meant, life imprisonment. Some years in prison is undoubtedly much lenient than death, and it also depends on the jail. Federal? State? Depends, and federal prison is in most cases, better than life on the streets
 
Death Penalty yes, but currently we do it stupid - it isn't a deterrent. Reducing the average wait time from 12-15 years to 12-15 weeks and then having public executions would be much more effective. My Boy Joe Who F***ing Stood Up To The Man And Wasted A F***ing Cop isn't such an emulation-worthy badass when everyone get's to watch him cry, beg for his life, and then crap all over himself.
 
Death Penalty yes, but currently we do it stupid - it isn't a deterrent. Reducing the average wait time from 12-15 years to 12-15 weeks and then having public executions would be much more effective. My Boy Joe Who F***ing Stood Up To The Man And Wasted A F***ing Cop isn't such an emulation-worthy badass when everyone get's to watch him cry, beg for his life, and then crap all over himself.
The appeals process is far too important to compress into such a short time period, especially when innocent people have been executed having far more opportunity and time to build a defense. Mob rule isn't the answer.
 
The appeals process is far too important to compress into such a short time period, especially when innocent people have been executed having far more opportunity and time to build a defense. Mob rule isn't the answer.

I remember that in WWI, British soldiers were given 20 minutes to 1 hour to plead their lives in court martial.
 
One facet of this that I have never understood is how conservatives, who are generally Christians, reconcile their defense of the DP with the theology of the Christian religion.

There were the concepts of "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" espoused in the Old Testament, but in Christian theology, Christ's death on the cross ushered in a New Covenant- a new set of laws, wherein forgiveness and mercy were of the utmost importance. Christ had already died for the sins of each person. I don't know of any New Testament reference to the DP that would lead me to believe it was justifiable for Christians to support it.

One of the most recent scheduled executions in Georgia (which was stayed) was that of Nicholas Cody Tate who killed a lady and a little girl in 2001. The victims' family expressed anger, vindictiveness- almost hatred toward the condemned, and when his execution was stayed because he finally, at the last minute, excercised his right to appeal, they were even angrier.

I don't see vindictiveness, anger, and hatred as emotions that are godly according to Christian tenets. I just don't get how the two reconcile. Most Christians in Georgia are pro-DP, but it contradicts the most basic beliefs of the religion.
 
One facet of this that I have never understood is how conservatives, who are generally Christians, reconcile their defense of the DP with the theology of the Christian religion.

There were the concepts of "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" espoused in the Old Testament, but in Christian theology, Christ's death on the cross ushered in a New Covenant- a new set of laws, wherein forgiveness and mercy were of the utmost importance. Christ had already died for the sins of each person. I don't know of any New Testament reference to the DP that would lead me to believe it was justifiable for Christians to support it.

One of the most recent scheduled executions in Georgia (which was stayed) was that of Nicholas Cody Tate who killed a lady and a little girl in 2001. The victims' family expressed anger, vindictiveness- almost hatred toward the condemned, and when his execution was stayed because he finally, at the last minute, excercised his right to appeal, they were even angrier.

I don't see vindictiveness, anger, and hatred as emotions that are godly according to Christian tenets. I just don't get how the two reconcile. Most Christians in Georgia are pro-DP, but it contradicts the most basic beliefs of the religion.
If Christ died for our sins, why shouldn't some scumbag die for his own? A bit of a disconnect there
 
If Christ died for our sins, why shouldn't some scumbag die for his own? A bit of a disconnect there
I believe the point that was made is that a main tenet of christian belief is that forgiveness and mercy are virtues and core to christianity.
 
I believe the point that was made is that a main tenet of christian belief is that forgiveness and mercy are virtues and core to christianity.

Man's legal system isn't part of the Christian belief system.
 
Back
Top Bottom