Death Penalty

Which covenant is that? It is not the Mosaic covenant?

Quantrill

 

No, our laws don't prevent anyone from taking another's life. Our laws make it a crime punishable by death for taking anothers life. Again, your mixing punishment with murder. Not the same.

Quantrill

 

No, that is not what describes murder.

Murder is defined in legal statute and the all encompasing "unjustifiable homicide" is not how it is described.

There are many unjustifiable homicides, such as negligent homiced, that are not described as murder. Murder is described in law as an "illegal" homicide which is intentional, non negligent, and, usually, involves even more specific descriptions, depending upon jurisdiction.

The death penalty is a legal sanction which is a justifiable homicide based upon the principle of justice, just as all criminal sanctions are.

 

Genesis 9 is part of the Noahic covenant

 

True, and this covenant has not been done away with as the Mosaic was. Which means the death penalty is still in place.

Quantrill

 

Scriptural basis for your position is?

 

Have you been paying attention. Gen. 9. for the covenant with Noah.

Ex. 19 for the covenant with Moses.

Matt.26:28 for the New Covenant established after the death of Christ.

That the law or covenant with Moses is done away with, see 2Cor.3:7-11

There is no revoking the death penalty under the covenant with Noah.

Quantrill

 

The point being missed is that murder is murder regardless of whether it's sanctioned under the law or not. The taking of the life of a person when it is not driven by necessity is murder.

As far as I'm concerned the only difference between the executioner in Texas and Jeffrery Dahmer is that the executioner isn't allowed to engage in necrophilia and cannibalism under the law.

Once agian, the government has no authority to punish but instead has an obligation to protect. Revenge is not justice and capital punishment is an act of revenge.

 

It's hard to believe that someone would cite a book that is probably responsible for the murder of more innocent people than any other single book in history as an authority.

Perhaps we should bring back the Salem Witch Trials?

And people wonder why the founders of America rejected religion as the foundation for government in the Declaration of Independence.

 

This argument suggests that vigilanteism is okay. I'm hoping you mean something more nuanced than that.

Of course the difference is that someone executed under law has been found guilty. But given the fact that the system is capable of screwing up, shouldn't this be paired with a great deal of allowance for appeals? That's what makes the whole (*)(*)(*)(*) thing so expensive and yet without that in place, the death penalty is unfathomable.

Now some difference exists in states. I don't mind the NY death penalty as much (when is the last time they executed anyone?) as the Texas one. Why?
You talk about "threat to society."
Your argument is decent, better than that of the "eye for an eye" types.
But how do you prove one is a threat to society? And I do believe the burden should be on the prosecution to determine that.
Murderers have a relatively low recivitism rate. Many murderers are not a threat to society. Furthermore most murderers are not a threat when imprisoned. The only exceptions I can think of are people like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

If the death penalty was truly about threats, it would be rare like in NY. Of course that would remove what deterrent effect exists (or rather might exist according to one study

This much is true. They were only against cruel and unusual.
What I find strange is that we consider lethal injection (very painful, but the victim cannot show the pain, thus comforting the people watching) not cruel but we got rid of more instant forms of killing like beheading and hanging (when done right). Beheading is considered "unusual" I guess.
The electric chair should NEVER have been allowed. It is both cruel and unusual.

Then again, the founding fathers still allowed dueling.

It's the law for all people.
Criminals are just an area where ideals fall apart. The question is how to preserve ideals the best we can given a system failure.

One can claim the death penalty makes the US MORE LIKE a tyrannical government.
I believe torture makes the US more tyrannical than it would otherwise be.
Some believe income tax makes the country more tyrannical (I believe the opposite).

Tyranny and liberty are ends of a scale, not a binary thing.

 

Im not missing your point. I am saying your wrong in your point. Punishment is not murder. If the government has not authority for the death penalty then neither does it have authority to put someone in prison for life.

Again, punishment by law is not revenge. It is no more revenge then putting someone in prison for life.

Quantrill

 

Please pay attention. I was asked the question.

The Declaration of Independence does nothing for or against the death penalty.

Quantrill

 

There are appeals already in place.

You misunderstand. The only thing I said about a 'threat to society' is that I don't care about it one way or another. The point is, did the individual commit the crime. If he did, then he is to be executed. Plain and simple.

The Declaration of Independence is just that and no more. It doesn't prove or disprove the death penalty.

Quantrill

 

Life, as established in the Declaration of Independence is one of three identified unalienable Rights of the People. While pragmatic considerations related to protection of our unalienable Rights do require the infringment upon unalienable Rigtht that infringment should always be the least amount possible.

There are no pragmatic considerations that would justify the violation of the unalienable Right to Life as it is unnecessary for the protection of the unalienable Rights of the People.

The unnecessary infringment upon the unalienable Rights of the People by government is an act of tyranny by government. To support the death penalty is an endorsement of tyranny by the government.

 

When you commit certain crimes you lose your rights. And with some crimes you lose your right to live.

Quantrill

 

Unalienable Rights are never lost as they are inherent in the individual. Such a Right can't even be given away by the individual. To protect the unalienable Rights of others they can be infringed upon for pragmatic reasons but only to the extent necessary for the protection of the unalienable Rights of others.

Apparently some have never understood what the Declaration of Independence actual says and means.

To provide a reference for understanding:

I would dispute that the Founding Fathers were highly religious as many were outright agnostic and the term "god" was intentionally omitted from the Declaration of Independence and instead "creator" was used is reflective of this. What is evident is th fact that they adopted the teaching of such men as John Locke in establishing the ideals of unalienable (natural) Rights and that the protection of those Rights as the primary purpose of government is beyond dispute. Whether we refer to god or to mother nature as being our "creator" is irrelevant as the unalienable Rights were acknowledged as existing and the establishment of government to protect these Rights is clearly established in the Declaration of Independence.

Today some even dispute that natural or unalienable (inalienable) Rights exist but they are in direct conflict with the foundation of America when they do so. If unalienable Rights do not exist there is fundmentally no reason for government. Murder, robbery, rape and mayham would be acceptable were it not for the unalienable Rights of the Individual. If a person doesn't have any unalienable Rights then what is there for government to protect?

 

Yes, the rights are lost when you become a criminal. You may disagree with it, but they are lost. And, as I said, with some come the loss of your right to life.

The Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, are all about living as free men under a govrnment. Once you break the laws, then you come under the trial and punishment form of law. You lose your rights to that which you had previously.

Quantrill

 

It is useless for me to debate with such an obvious lack of understanding of the foundation of America. The ideal of the unalienable Rights of the Individual were the very thing that made America different than any other nation. The failure to understand the ideals upon which America was founded obviously reflects a failure of our education system as it is so fundamental to what being an American is all about. It's a pity that more Americans don't take the time to actually know and understand what being an American is really all about. It is the very ideal of unalienable Rights that sets us apart from other nations.

Respectfully

 

Unalienable rights have nothing to do with the death penalty. Once you commit a crime that brings the death penalty as punishment, then your right to life has ended.

Quantrill

 

...no Government can deny these rights.

What part of this isn't understood?

 

It's "inalienable".

inalienable: adjective incapable of being conveyed, incapable of being sold, incapable of being transferred, nontransferable, not able to be conveyed, quod abalienari non potest, secured by law, unable to be bought, unable to be disposed of, unforfeitable, untouchable

From the Free Law Dictionary

inalienable
adjective /ɪˈneɪ.li.ə.nə.bl ̩/ adj formal Definition
unable to be removed, an inalienable right

From the Cambridge Dictionary

 

Yes a government can deny these rights once the individual commits a crime. The individual comes under the punishment phase of the law. Rights are for the individual as he lives in accordance to the laws of the land.

Once you begin breaking laws, you begin losing your rights. If your locked up in prison for the rest of your life, you have lost your right to the pursuit of happiness. Correct? Not to mention your liberty.

Quantrill

 

Then why send anyone to prison? You take away their liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Quantrill

 

"Why do we kill people to show people that killing people is wrong?"