23
Opinions on Capital Punishment/Death Penalty [For Research Essay]gavel
Creative_Kylee
MelodicCougar7Okay, so I just need ya'll to vote on whether you agree or disagree with the death penalty/capital punishment. I only need one more non-article source for my essay, and my teacher said that internet polls are an option, so here I am.
Poll ended 04/13/2023 8:58 am.
Create an account or sign in to comment.
45
2
As someone who will soon be paying taxes as a US citizen, I am all for it in the most severe cases. I don’t won’t my hard earned money fueling the life of someone who will rot in prison forever for a crime that ruined or ended a life.
6
I'm pretty strongly opposed to the death penalty.
- It has no actual benefit to society. It's entirely emotional, and I don't think we should base laws on that; "they should die because my gut tells me they deserve it" feels like the same logic to me as "homosexuality should be banned because my gut tells me it's wrong". The difference between that and something like, say, arresting people who steal is there actually is a practical benefit to society from allowing people to live with mutual trust and without worrying about their things being stolen.
- Innocent people can be falsely accused and killed as long as the death penalty exists. Again, there is literally no benefit from the death penalty, so supporting it is being willing to trade potentially innocent lives for absolutely nothing in return.
- It gives governments power to decide who lives and who dies. It's very easy to see how that could spiral out of control. Again, this is with no benefit to the people.
- From a purely practical perspective, from what I remember, it actually costs less money to keep prisoners alive most of the time. This is because of legal costs; obviously a potential death sentence has higher stakes.
- For an emotional argument, it's just a basic concept that revenge is wrong. If we're going to be consistent, that has to apply to the death penalty, too. I think our lizard brains kind of get the best of us when we forget that.
2
I'm rather in favor of the death penalty, but only as long as it it used appropriately. Here's why I believe the use of capital punishment is appropriate:
1. It benefits society. The death penalty is used only to punish the most horrific crimes against humanity. There is a practical benefit to showing the worst of the worst that their crimes will not be tolerated to any degree. Remember the Nuremburg Trials; Nazis being sentenced for war crimes and many to death. This was a clear message that such horrific rights abuses were intolerable and I believe that it has set clear precedent against such abuse.
2. Innocents rarely, if ever, die under the current system. According to this: "For every 8.2 people executed in the United States in the modern era of the death penalty, one person on death row has been exonerated." There can be human error involved, sure. But if you do the math, that's about a 12% rate of failure. The statistic is somewhat misleading, as a conviction is not the same as an execution, and most are exonerated before, not after, execution. Not only that, but there is an appeals system and advocacy groups like this who work to correct such failures. See 1 for benefit explanation.
3. The US has a government run military (like most countries) and they decide how to use it. Unlike most countries, the American right to bear arms is protected. If the government ever unjustly comes after you, you are allowed to defend yourself. The government has practically no power to "start killing everyone" because Americans would revolt and throw them out of power.
4. It does cost less money. The precedence that capital crimes will not be tolerated is however more important and worth far more.
5. Revenge is wrong, justice is right. Governments must protect the people and provide justice in all circumstances, "and that has to apply to the death penalty as well."
Ultimately, it seems "they deserve it" is in fact supported by precedent (Nuremburg), government's basic duties, and logic (not punishing criminals leads to more criminals). For these reasons I believe the death penalty outweighs the problems that go with the legal system as a whole (wrongful conviction).
1. It benefits society. The death penalty is used only to punish the most horrific crimes against humanity. There is a practical benefit to showing the worst of the worst that their crimes will not be tolerated to any degree. Remember the Nuremburg Trials; Nazis being sentenced for war crimes and many to death. This was a clear message that such horrific rights abuses were intolerable and I believe that it has set clear precedent against such abuse.
2. Innocents rarely, if ever, die under the current system. According to this: "For every 8.2 people executed in the United States in the modern era of the death penalty, one person on death row has been exonerated." There can be human error involved, sure. But if you do the math, that's about a 12% rate of failure. The statistic is somewhat misleading, as a conviction is not the same as an execution, and most are exonerated before, not after, execution. Not only that, but there is an appeals system and advocacy groups like this who work to correct such failures. See 1 for benefit explanation.
3. The US has a government run military (like most countries) and they decide how to use it. Unlike most countries, the American right to bear arms is protected. If the government ever unjustly comes after you, you are allowed to defend yourself. The government has practically no power to "start killing everyone" because Americans would revolt and throw them out of power.
4. It does cost less money. The precedence that capital crimes will not be tolerated is however more important and worth far more.
5. Revenge is wrong, justice is right. Governments must protect the people and provide justice in all circumstances, "and that has to apply to the death penalty as well."
Ultimately, it seems "they deserve it" is in fact supported by precedent (Nuremburg), government's basic duties, and logic (not punishing criminals leads to more criminals). For these reasons I believe the death penalty outweighs the problems that go with the legal system as a whole (wrongful conviction).
3
Interesting points, I think a large part of this debate just comes down to your opinion and not necessarily facts about which is better. Just a few thoughts on what you said though:
Isn't a 12% rate of failure insanely high for something that has such a consequence as death? I would in no way say 12% is 'rare' for anything I was looking at, let alone for the death penalty.
If we're just talking about the US here, they have what is ultimately a bottomless pit of money. Keeping a couple of extra prisoners is going to make no difference whatsoever in cost to the point where I don't think that should really be considered as an argument. I do realise though that you weren't necessarily making that as an argument and were just responding to the previous comment.
Never thought I'd be discussing the death penalty on planet minecraft lol.
Isn't a 12% rate of failure insanely high for something that has such a consequence as death? I would in no way say 12% is 'rare' for anything I was looking at, let alone for the death penalty.
If we're just talking about the US here, they have what is ultimately a bottomless pit of money. Keeping a couple of extra prisoners is going to make no difference whatsoever in cost to the point where I don't think that should really be considered as an argument. I do realise though that you weren't necessarily making that as an argument and were just responding to the previous comment.
Never thought I'd be discussing the death penalty on planet minecraft lol.
7
In my opinion death penalty is okay as long as it's only being used to punish the worst of the worst criminals
8
I honestly think that death penalty and such is just stupid, it's so old-fashioned and SCREAMS of a country that's not exactly stable (not always, but in many cases)
I am myself from a country where this is illegal, and you can't even be sentenced to jail for more than 21 years, and that might have an impact on my opinion in this topic.
I know that it's a tough topic, and some people have like super strong opinions on this, but most of all I just think it's not fair. Even if somebody decides to commit murder or something similar, it's not fair to kill them. I'm not saying that's right, but instead of sentencing them to death penalty, let them serve in jail for a little while and maybe they'll realize that what they did was wrong.
I also don't think it's right to just get rid of people who don't understand how their actions were wrong, and that will also cancel any opportunity to rehabilitate them.
Adding to this, i would personally not feel safe in a place wjere the people who are in power will just kill people (not innocent people though) on occasion.
I also like what @LBoomsky said abt it
I am myself from a country where this is illegal, and you can't even be sentenced to jail for more than 21 years, and that might have an impact on my opinion in this topic.
I know that it's a tough topic, and some people have like super strong opinions on this, but most of all I just think it's not fair. Even if somebody decides to commit murder or something similar, it's not fair to kill them. I'm not saying that's right, but instead of sentencing them to death penalty, let them serve in jail for a little while and maybe they'll realize that what they did was wrong.
I also don't think it's right to just get rid of people who don't understand how their actions were wrong, and that will also cancel any opportunity to rehabilitate them.
Adding to this, i would personally not feel safe in a place wjere the people who are in power will just kill people (not innocent people though) on occasion.
I also like what @LBoomsky said abt it
6
You can clearly tell most people voting here are from the USA.....
9
I believe that it defeats the point of “punishing” someone for their actions. The intent of most punishment is to discourage people from committing further crimes, but if they are dead, we’ll, their dead. It does not give the person a chance to change, and therefore goes against its own ideals. Another reason is that if death is the punishment for causing death then how are we any better than the criminal? Both ended a life in some form, and caused pain to a family.
This is just my opinion, totally get the other side’s points, but this is how I feel about it!
This is just my opinion, totally get the other side’s points, but this is how I feel about it!
3
Capital "punishment" is, as you pointed out, a bit of a misnomer. It's really justice. Many core governmental policies surronding this are based off the Biblical principle of "an eye for an eye." A life for a life, the value of the sheep for a sheep, etc. It doesn't discourage the criminal, true. It discourages other would-be criminals. The ideal here is justice; to enforce las which protect the people.vWe aren't "better" than the criminal, but governments must provide justice. It's at the core of what they are. If they don't, they're a sham. If they don't enforce punishment for capital crimes, it's not hard to see a mightmare unfolding.
As humans, all we can do is enforce God's laws when it comes to government, give mercy in all other circumstances, and pray continually.
As humans, all we can do is enforce God's laws when it comes to government, give mercy in all other circumstances, and pray continually.
4
Bible?? I'm sorry but didn't Christ literally say that the Eye for an Eye thing was bs? His whole thing was that we should love EVERYONE no matter what's the case. One of his main points was that we SHOULD forgive a person for killing our own family... idk maybe we read different bibles then lmao
3
Not quite. Christ said to forgive others, acting as an individual. "Do not judge, for you too will be judged." etc. However, this doesn't nullify the role of government. Government, to fulfill its purpose, must punish criminals to have a sound base. A government which doesn't punish the most despicable of crimes cannot endure. Government has been given authority to determine if capital punishment is warranted and given the relative difficulty of prescribing and the infrequency of its use I believe the current system to be functioning within practical and Biblical capacities.
5
Are we all talking about the same God who committed mass genocide by drowning everybody?
4
Yes, and this discussion follows similar lines of reasoning. God flooded the earth because humans no longer deserved to exist. See Genesis for details. God did save some (basically one family) people out of the rest because they alone deserved to live.
1
I’m sure all kids deserved death, those little bastards were always doing the most disgusting things!! Especially the 1 year olds!! Holy shit, God never did anything wrong ☠️
view more replies ( 1 )
4
I agree with you, if you die for being killed than it would just be an endless loop of murder
5
Remember, murder is "unlawful and unjust killing." Execution, or capital punishment, is lawful and just. Killers give up their right to not be killed, so to hold the killer accountable for their crime they are treated in kind. An eye for an eye, etc. It's not an endless loop; it begins and ends with the one killer.
4
Good points! Always fun to hear different opinions! :)
3
Depends; I'd support it case by case. If you rape a child, I think you should be put to death.
However, how is any of this related to minecraft?
However, how is any of this related to minecraft?
1
I did put it in the "non-Minecraft related" category for a reason-
4
It's not, but it's a good discussion. :)
2
I agree, but I think it is used too much.
4
The death penalty is usually only imposed under extreme circumstances. I agree with Skwerps, that only capital crimes deserve capital punishments. I can go more in depth with this, but I'm too lazy to do it right now. So in conclusion, I agree.
AND GOOD LUCK ON YOUR ESSAY :D
AND GOOD LUCK ON YOUR ESSAY :D
4
Whats a capital crime? You've given a circular definition. Capital crime: a crime deserving of the death penalty.
5
a capital crime is a more serious and severe crime. It's usually a crime involving ruthless murder or multiple ruthless murders.
5
People will say we should have death penalties, but the moment a person from their family or the person themselves is in the death row, suddenly we should now be kind... According to the humans rights, everyone has the right to live and that should not be taken away by anyone. Killing someone who murdered a person is, by definition, a murder as well.
2
Not necessarily. I am sure at least some inmates on death row believed that they deserved their punishment. I think that the "I ought to be forgiven" type is the exception to the rule of "My actions got be here."
By committing a capital crime you deny the rights of others, therfore you deny that they exist for yourself. By committing a capital crime, the criminal deprives himself of the right to life.
By definition, a murder is an unlawful and unjust killing. Capital punishment (at least that in America) is ordered by a court only if the defendant is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and both judge, jury and law agree that capital punishment is warranted by the crime. In other words, it is both lawful and just. Therefore, they are intrinsically different.
By committing a capital crime you deny the rights of others, therfore you deny that they exist for yourself. By committing a capital crime, the criminal deprives himself of the right to life.
By definition, a murder is an unlawful and unjust killing. Capital punishment (at least that in America) is ordered by a court only if the defendant is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and both judge, jury and law agree that capital punishment is warranted by the crime. In other words, it is both lawful and just. Therefore, they are intrinsically different.
2
The right to live goes beyond the person themselves. Sure, a person can take away their own lives/believe they should die, but when given the opportunity, the government should always strive to save that person. That's why we always try to save those who, for example, try to jump off of bridges/buildings. The idea is that the person does not actually know if they want to die or not, phycology also backs this claim. People who tried to kill themselves and get saved, most of the time say that they didn't actually want to die, they just wanted the "pain" to go away. You cannot trust the individual.
Denying someone's rights doesn't mean that you deny yours or that other people should deny yours. Although that might sound weird for you, it is how the human rights are written and work. And if we are to respect the human rights, we also ought to respect that everyone deserves the right to live no matter what they did/do.
Capital punishments ordered by court and law are only a thing if the country has this law. But do understand that that DOES go against the human rights. Human rights cannot and should not be neglected by law. The idea that the USA (not America, America is the continent) violate that is sickening at best... Again, according to the human rights legislation (and not the USA laws because we do not care about those), killing someone, no matter what the case, IS qualified as murder. The only exception is self-defense which is another can of worms that I won't go any deeper in.
Countries CAN go against the human rights legislation if they want to (cof cof USA), but again, that is going against the human rights. Doesn't matter if it became a law or not, it IS against the human rights.
If you disagree with any of these statements, fair enough it is your opinion, but do understand that it, by definition, will go against be the human rights.
Denying someone's rights doesn't mean that you deny yours or that other people should deny yours. Although that might sound weird for you, it is how the human rights are written and work. And if we are to respect the human rights, we also ought to respect that everyone deserves the right to live no matter what they did/do.
Capital punishments ordered by court and law are only a thing if the country has this law. But do understand that that DOES go against the human rights. Human rights cannot and should not be neglected by law. The idea that the USA (not America, America is the continent) violate that is sickening at best... Again, according to the human rights legislation (and not the USA laws because we do not care about those), killing someone, no matter what the case, IS qualified as murder. The only exception is self-defense which is another can of worms that I won't go any deeper in.
Countries CAN go against the human rights legislation if they want to (cof cof USA), but again, that is going against the human rights. Doesn't matter if it became a law or not, it IS against the human rights.
If you disagree with any of these statements, fair enough it is your opinion, but do understand that it, by definition, will go against be the human rights.
2
"The wages of sin is death." If you sin, you earn death. All have sinned, therefore all deserve death. Fortunately, that doesn't have to be the case, but that's not the point here. Governments pass laws to punish crimes and to protect people. (For this at least, that's the way it works.)
Murder, for example, is both sin and a crime. The government holds the guilty accountable for their crimes, and God holds the guilty accountable for their sins. If you are a murderer, you are dead by the standards of both Earth and heaven. Heaven can and has forgiven you, if you will accept it, but temporal justice is, as you put it, "another can of worms."
As I see it, there are two options for a judge and jury on punishment for a convicted defendant of a capital crime. 1. Life imprisonment. This is rather common, seeing as it's actually cheaper than execution due to legal fees, and 2. Capital punishment. If both judge and jury believe that what the criminal has done merits their execution, that's what will happen. Failing that, they will either be sent to jail with other prisoners who have committed terrible things or sentenced to solitary confinement until they die.
Both are rather terrible, but they are terrible in accordance with the severity of the crime. Human rights are limited by human rights, and if you deprive other humans of their rights and even their lives, you have earned your punishment. The only alternative to punishment is to let the criminal go free. Human rights can only be protected by observing them as an individual and holding accountable transgressors.
Murder, for example, is both sin and a crime. The government holds the guilty accountable for their crimes, and God holds the guilty accountable for their sins. If you are a murderer, you are dead by the standards of both Earth and heaven. Heaven can and has forgiven you, if you will accept it, but temporal justice is, as you put it, "another can of worms."
As I see it, there are two options for a judge and jury on punishment for a convicted defendant of a capital crime. 1. Life imprisonment. This is rather common, seeing as it's actually cheaper than execution due to legal fees, and 2. Capital punishment. If both judge and jury believe that what the criminal has done merits their execution, that's what will happen. Failing that, they will either be sent to jail with other prisoners who have committed terrible things or sentenced to solitary confinement until they die.
Both are rather terrible, but they are terrible in accordance with the severity of the crime. Human rights are limited by human rights, and if you deprive other humans of their rights and even their lives, you have earned your punishment. The only alternative to punishment is to let the criminal go free. Human rights can only be protected by observing them as an individual and holding accountable transgressors.
10
It goes against the very idea of justice and rehabilitation by getting rid of the people who don't understand the severity of their actions.
To study the mindset and reasoning used by those who do heinous things is the first step in prevention.
As we keep ending the lives of those we declare nonredeemable we will be doing nothing to prevent others from succumbing to the same ideas.
To study the mindset and reasoning used by those who do heinous things is the first step in prevention.
As we keep ending the lives of those we declare nonredeemable we will be doing nothing to prevent others from succumbing to the same ideas.
3
In this case, it's not about "redeemable," although I agree that they can be. It's about justice. For the government to be just, they have to equally apply the laws; to those who have been redeemed as well as those who have not.
I would contend that Ted Bundy (famous serial killer who killed 50 women but was put on death row for 10 years) knew that killing was wrong, and certainly knew it was illegal and punishable by death. He did it anyway.
I also contend that we know what makes men do evil: temptation and the following sin. Fighting temptation fights evil, either theologically, spiritually, or even practically. (Criminals are not the product of their enviroment.)
By enforcing justice through capital punishment the legal system sends a clear message that violation of another's rights to life forfeits your own, and many would-be criminals, out of fear of the law, would not commit crimes. We would be dissauding others from "succumbing" by upholding justice.
I would contend that Ted Bundy (famous serial killer who killed 50 women but was put on death row for 10 years) knew that killing was wrong, and certainly knew it was illegal and punishable by death. He did it anyway.
I also contend that we know what makes men do evil: temptation and the following sin. Fighting temptation fights evil, either theologically, spiritually, or even practically. (Criminals are not the product of their enviroment.)
By enforcing justice through capital punishment the legal system sends a clear message that violation of another's rights to life forfeits your own, and many would-be criminals, out of fear of the law, would not commit crimes. We would be dissauding others from "succumbing" by upholding justice.
7
The very fact i am discussing this shows it has not been an effective deterrent, and only serves to make people stay in hiding for their crimes rather than being able to move on with their lives, which is a vicious cycle.
How can we truly know if someone is consciously aware of their mistakes, or if they are simply too mentally unsound to be safe around other people? EIther way, a lethal retaliation will end the conflict in its tracks, but it is most certainly not the best solution for any of the involved parties.
It's not justice, it's just punishment.
A psychologist could get to the bottom of how they justify their actions, understand what patterns of thought caused them to take drastic measures and might even be able to understand the severity of their actions and take the first step in trying to better themselves. People can only be redeemed once they feel remorse for those they have wronged, and i personally believe this is something all humans are capable of.
How can we truly know if someone is consciously aware of their mistakes, or if they are simply too mentally unsound to be safe around other people? EIther way, a lethal retaliation will end the conflict in its tracks, but it is most certainly not the best solution for any of the involved parties.
It's not justice, it's just punishment.
A psychologist could get to the bottom of how they justify their actions, understand what patterns of thought caused them to take drastic measures and might even be able to understand the severity of their actions and take the first step in trying to better themselves. People can only be redeemed once they feel remorse for those they have wronged, and i personally believe this is something all humans are capable of.
3
There are two fundamental laws that all major religions and philosophies agree on: 1. Do all you have agreed to do and 2. do not encroach on other persons or their property. A capital crime, like most crimes, violates this most basic of legal principles, but to an extreme extent. Early common law had a solution for those who broke them: retribution or outlawing. The criminal would either solve what he had damaged or lose all claim to human rights; having denied the existence of said rights for others, he denied them for himself. Considering the extremity of the second option, it was rarely used as the criminal would almost always provide retribution.
There's a distinction here I'd like to make. Manslaughter, accidental killing, is not a capital crime. Murder, intentional and unlawful killing, can be a capital crime. Either way, it is up to the court to determine which the defendant is guilty of, if any. Punishment, justice, is meted out as to the seriousness of the crime. People should be held accountable for their actions. A psychologist could determine why they acted but that, even if fixed, would not make the criminal any less guilty. Shall we let murderers go free because they apologized and claimed they wouldn't do it again? To not punish criminals is to deny they committed a crime. Justice is holding criminals accountable for their actions. Only government has the power to do this, so the individual's role is clear. Government punishes. Individuals forgive.
There's a distinction here I'd like to make. Manslaughter, accidental killing, is not a capital crime. Murder, intentional and unlawful killing, can be a capital crime. Either way, it is up to the court to determine which the defendant is guilty of, if any. Punishment, justice, is meted out as to the seriousness of the crime. People should be held accountable for their actions. A psychologist could determine why they acted but that, even if fixed, would not make the criminal any less guilty. Shall we let murderers go free because they apologized and claimed they wouldn't do it again? To not punish criminals is to deny they committed a crime. Justice is holding criminals accountable for their actions. Only government has the power to do this, so the individual's role is clear. Government punishes. Individuals forgive.
3
You basically described Human Rights lmao
2
"an eye for an eye" (you kill, you die)
This is kinda how I see it, but you do make a valid point though.
(Also, the death penalty would totally help with overpopulation, just sayin' 👀)
This is kinda how I see it, but you do make a valid point though.
(Also, the death penalty would totally help with overpopulation, just sayin' 👀)
4
I don't think you could "solve" "overpopulation" by killing about 0.00000000000125% of the earth's population at a time. Maybe help with prison overcrowding (actually a really big issue) but not overpopulation. :)
2
That ideal is old af, from a time when people did all sorts of atrocious things. There's a reason as to why most governments do not create laws like that anymore...
7
that would only cause more suffering though
5
This a tricky topic. Considering that this is primarily a moral-ethical issue as opposed a practical one, I'll evaluate it on theological grounds.
The Old Testament commanded the death penalty for murder, kidnapping, adultery, false prophecy, and other things that are rather outside the limits of minor discussion. God has shown mercy in the face of these crimes (King David, murder and adultery), but ultimately every sin we commit ought to earn us the (eternal) death penalty because the wages of sin is death. Through His death on the cross, He forgives those who accept his grace.
For temporal purposes though, God has given government to authority to determine when capital punishment is warranted, and since His is the highest standard, that is what we must accept.
The first purpose of government is to protect the people. If a criminal is a danger to society, and capital punishment is warranted, that is what should be done. It's when the criminal is not a danger to society (has been saved by grace, etc.) the topic becomes really tough. Is it still just to execute someone who has repented of their crimes?
Ultimately though, I think it boils down to whether the defendant committed the crime. If they didn't, then they are innocent, and if they did, then the government should administer justice regardless.
It is a terrible thing to take a human's life. Life is sacred and irreplaceable. Capital punishment should only be used to punish the most terrible of crimes. However, it should still be up to the government to determine whether it is used.
Therefore, I agree.
Much thanks to https://www.gotquestions.org/death-penalty.html for providing reference material I used here.
The Old Testament commanded the death penalty for murder, kidnapping, adultery, false prophecy, and other things that are rather outside the limits of minor discussion. God has shown mercy in the face of these crimes (King David, murder and adultery), but ultimately every sin we commit ought to earn us the (eternal) death penalty because the wages of sin is death. Through His death on the cross, He forgives those who accept his grace.
For temporal purposes though, God has given government to authority to determine when capital punishment is warranted, and since His is the highest standard, that is what we must accept.
The first purpose of government is to protect the people. If a criminal is a danger to society, and capital punishment is warranted, that is what should be done. It's when the criminal is not a danger to society (has been saved by grace, etc.) the topic becomes really tough. Is it still just to execute someone who has repented of their crimes?
Ultimately though, I think it boils down to whether the defendant committed the crime. If they didn't, then they are innocent, and if they did, then the government should administer justice regardless.
It is a terrible thing to take a human's life. Life is sacred and irreplaceable. Capital punishment should only be used to punish the most terrible of crimes. However, it should still be up to the government to determine whether it is used.
Therefore, I agree.
Much thanks to https://www.gotquestions.org/death-penalty.html for providing reference material I used here.
3
Well, explain to me then why cant we just give the person a life sentence? They'll be in jail for the rest of their lives unable to harm others. There's no reason why we NEED to murder them. Not only that but all of this goes against the Human Rights legislation by definition and also (if you like to talk Bible that much) goes against all the teachings of Christ who said we should love EVERYONE no matter what. One of his teachings was literally "should you forgive someone who killed your family?" and his answer was "yes, you should"
3
I do like to talk about the Bible so much, so here's a verse like the one you mentioned: Galatians 6:7-8: "7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life." (credit to https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians+6&version=NIV)
What a criminal sows, they reap. The government is biblically mandated to punish criminals in accordance with the severity of the crime (eye for eye, etc.) The individual is mandated to love others, true. The government is mandated to provide justice, and to punish transgressors of human rights (rights to life, liberty, property; do not encroach, do all you have agreed to do, etc.) You should forgive the criminal who killed your family, the government should not. Allowing criminals to get away without accountability is both criminal and irresponsible.
A life sentence is a common alternative that many judges and juries elect to use. Capital punishment is only used for the most extreme of cases, so it seems "fair" to punish extreme criminals extremely (capital punishment) and lesser criminals with lesser punishment (life imprisonment). Think of the Nuremburg Trials after WW2. Nazis who committed horrific human rights abuses sentenced to death. Should they have been put into prison for life as well? The judges determined that there was "a higher standard" than "I was just following orders" and sentenced the Nazis according to their crimes.
What a criminal sows, they reap. The government is biblically mandated to punish criminals in accordance with the severity of the crime (eye for eye, etc.) The individual is mandated to love others, true. The government is mandated to provide justice, and to punish transgressors of human rights (rights to life, liberty, property; do not encroach, do all you have agreed to do, etc.) You should forgive the criminal who killed your family, the government should not. Allowing criminals to get away without accountability is both criminal and irresponsible.
A life sentence is a common alternative that many judges and juries elect to use. Capital punishment is only used for the most extreme of cases, so it seems "fair" to punish extreme criminals extremely (capital punishment) and lesser criminals with lesser punishment (life imprisonment). Think of the Nuremburg Trials after WW2. Nazis who committed horrific human rights abuses sentenced to death. Should they have been put into prison for life as well? The judges determined that there was "a higher standard" than "I was just following orders" and sentenced the Nazis according to their crimes.
7
Tough Topic, I'm not sure.
(My real recommendation is to not have pmc pick for you, since it's your essay, but I can understand needing a tie breaker)
(My real recommendation is to not have pmc pick for you, since it's your essay, but I can understand needing a tie breaker)
9
I would say yes, but strictly controlled. Only capital crimes deserve capital punishments.
