The Death Penalty

[AquaTeen]

The reason that I don't support the death penalty is because for 10 most people sentenced to the death penalty are typically charged with 1st degree murder. For 20 if you kill the person on death row, you're stooping down to the level of that criminal being euthanized so the death penalty is considered (in my opinion) Counter-murder.

[~kitty~]

The idea of the Death Penalty is a vengeful one (as well as expensive).

I do not support the death penalty...

I think there are better ways to go out there and say "Thou shall not kill" and add onto it "therefore you shall die".

[Hayden_444]

they should just get life and not let them escape

[bobeck2]

For all of those who are saying that no one should have the power to take another's life, then I'm assuming that you also realize that means that no war is justified if a person is killed, and that use of deadly force for self defense is also unjustifiable as your are "choosing" to end a persons life, albiet the choice is a compelling one in the case of self defense.

The question to resolve capital punishment then is, who has the power to take a life? Should it not be the one who gave it? Now i realize that what I'm about to say will probably raise more controversy than even the topic itself but please bear with me. As a Christian I hold the premise that God created life via Creation. Thus only God is the one who can take it. However, he has through his laws, delegated that duty to the current civil authority. Thus our civil Government does indeed have power, yet limited power, to take ones life. (The limits of this power are for another discussion or for someone else to discuss ).

All this to say that I believe that the death penalty is justified on the premised that the one who gave life also allowed it to be taken away under certain circumstances and has implemented the Civil government to carry on that task.

[Lipidman]

I'm assuming you haven't heard the phrase "separation of church and state"?

[bobeck2]

This concept of separation of church and state, better know as the establishment clause is only applicable to the United States. However the issue of death penalty and the right to take a life obviously extends beyond the reaches of the United States and thus separation of church and state is not a limiting factor.

Further, I stated before that I based my premise on the fact that God gave life. Accordingly, that premise is in violation of the separation of Church and state. Then how do you explain the prelude to the constitution which bases its entire work on the premise that "[A]ll men are created equal and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..."?

[devonin]

This concept of separation of church and state, better know as the establishment clause is only applicable to the United States.

Actually, plenty of countries have either a formal separation of church and state, or at least an intention to never have a state-appointed national religion. I'd say that nations where religion plays an integral role in the functioning of the state are more of the exception than the rule.

Furthermore, and I quote from Wikiepedia: "Singapore, Japan and the U.S. are the only fully developed countries that have retained the death penalty." And of 198 countries, 102 have abolished the death penalty, and another 32 haven't used it in at least 10 years.

So I think it's pretty safe to say that unless you are Japanese, or Singaporean, if we're talking about the death penalty, we're probably talking about the United States, which DOES have separation of church and state, so the objection should stand.

Then how do you explain the prelude to the constitution which bases its entire work on the premise that "[A]ll men are created equal and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..."?

The preamble to the US Constitution reads

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Nothing in there about creators or anything.

The document you're referring to is Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independance, which while a very famous and important document in America, has no legal force in any aspect of American law.

[bobeck2]

Yes I realize that many other countries have the equivalent of separation of Church and state clauses. My point was that we do not know the extent to which the other countries have interpreted their separation of church and state clauses, thus OUR definition of separation of church and state is not limited to other countries in which case my original premise MAY still be applicable.

And yes. *Bangs head* i stand fully corrected that I just quoted the deceleration of independence. (My professor always hounded on us for not knowing the difference)

Further, one note on the separation of church and state, is that if a facially neutral law happens to coincide with a religious principle, as long as the law is applied equally, has a secular purpose and does not create excessive government entanglement with religion, then that law will be upheld. (this is known as the "lemon" test from Lemon v. Kurtz). So while the theory why civil governments should have the power to take a life is a religious belief, i believe it will still past muster because of the secular purpose and use.

[musicdemon]

This issue will never actually be resolved. There will always be people who're victims or family members of victims of horrible crimes that are in favor of the death penalty. There will always be people that believe that all life is sacred. Whether we should resort to violence over a certain wrongdoing is a decision we've faced many times in our lives.

Both viewpoints have merit, and I cannot definitively decide whether or not the death penalty should be legal. I do, however, know that any laws that are made (in the U.S.) should be without the bias of religion, even if the majority of the country shares the same religion.