Originally posted by wolfgang59 Why better?
This debate is about the value of life.
Killing another human being doesnt make things better.
The debate is also about culpability.
This changes a state-sponsored killing from murder to punishment. Putting down evil is never murder.
I'm sure the victim's family, seeing the state provide for the murderer's every whim, is so glad that the state cares so much about life, even though the State's attitude about the victim is just "oh, that's too bad".
Would that the State showed even as much value for the victim as they show for the murderer (in states with no death penalty).
Originally posted by Suzianne The debate is also about culpability.
This changes a state-sponsored killing from murder to punishment. Putting down evil is never murder.
I'm sure the victim's family, seeing the state provide for the murderer's every whim, is so glad that the state cares so much about life, even though the State's attitude about the victim is just "oh, that's too b uch value for the victim as they show for the murderer (in states with no death penalty).
I'm sure the victim's family, seeing the state provide for the murderer's every whim, is so glad that the state cares so much about life, even though the State's attitude about the victim is just "oh, that's too bad".
That you felt compelled to make such ridiculously false statements only demonstrates how utterly desperate you are to try to make a point.
Capital punishment is a leftover from barbaric times as is slavery. BOTH are condoned by the OT. Do you also condone both?
Originally posted by Suzianne The debate is also about culpability.
This changes a state-sponsored killing from murder to punishment. Putting down evil is never murder.
I'm sure the victim's family, seeing the state provide for the murderer's every whim, is so glad that the state cares so much about life, even though the State's attitude about the victim is just "oh, that's too b uch value for the victim as they show for the murderer (in states with no death penalty).
They don't lock the victim in a Super-max prison for the rest of his life. The victim's family's freedom far outweighs any handouts the murderer gets in the slammer.
Originally posted by SwissGambit They don't lock the victim in a Super-max prison for the rest of his life. The victim's family's freedom far outweighs any handouts the murderer gets in the slammer.
The point is that the murderer should not get any handouts, but deserves to be tormented in Hell.
Originally posted by Suzianne The debate is also about culpability.
This changes a state-sponsored killing from murder to punishment. Putting down evil is never murder.
I'm sure the victim's family, seeing the state provide for the murderer's every whim, is so glad that the state cares so much about life, even though the State's attitude about the victim is just "oh, that's too b ...[text shortened]... uch value for the victim as they show for the murderer (in states with no death penalty).
You're also supporting capital punishment Suzianne? Would you be prepared to execute a murderer?
Originally posted by wolfgang59 Capital Punishment is not murder.
Is that clear enough for you ... or do you want to mis-quote me again?
My misunderstanding. I am glad that you agree. I thought you were arguing against capital punishment, because you thought it was murder by the state government.
Capital Punishment: Murder?
02 Nov '12 22:58
Back to Top