|
|
Post by Daae on Aug 22, 2005 13:19:14 GMT -5
Who are we to decide who should live and who should die? I don't really hold with the death penalty, and I don't think anyone is beyond saving. Yes, the things he did were terrible and there is no excuse for them, but don't we lower ourselves by calling for his blood and rushing to deal out death and judgment? Some of the things I've read here almost smack of 1793 France, the Reign of Terror. And vengeance is never a good reason for killing someone, which is exactly what those families want. They're grieving, I know that, but adding one more death to the story will not make things better. Rader did some horrendous things, but God still loves him. That's the definition of unconditional love; loving us no matter what we do, no matter how we hurt him or the ones we love. And aren't we (Christians, which I know many people here are) called to imitate Christ? The word Christian basically means "little Christ". And that means loving and forgiving our enemies. Rader's actions may seem unforgivable, but I keep thinking of Jesus on the cross asking God to forgive those who were torturing and killing him (Luke 23:34). And I guess it applies to us too. Maybe it's because I've never been able to hold a grudge, but...well, I don't know. *hops off soapbox*Maybe Dennis Rader does deserve death, but who am I to make that decision?
|
|
|
|
Post by tinidril on Aug 22, 2005 15:36:58 GMT -5
The death penalty - my two cents: (I'm going broke, two cents at a time, lately!) Imprisonment is best suited for individual reform. It is a deterrent as well, but it's main intent is to house a dangerous person until they can be made to live safely within society. Execution is a deterrent - how effective is debatable - but a deterrent nonetheless. So why keep a person alive who, believed to be beyond help but even if 'reformed', will never live in society again? Especially, if the execution of that person might deter someone else from doing the same crime. If we're not trying to reform him, and we're not deterring other potential murderers, what's the point? Oh yeah, we don't execute because every life has value. Riiiiiiiiight. First, let me explain that I am so Pro-Life that I believe even abortionists should be allowed to live. I also believe that governments (both state and national) have the Biblical "right" to mete out death as judgement (as an aside, I have to say that the Biblical directive toward "capital punishment" is given to the sovereign state or person... there is no Biblical example of a "democratic" society in which the people themselves decide the rules for justice). But I have so little faith in the integrety of our judicial system that I do not support the death penalty. Although the science of the criminal justice system is becoming more accurate and reliable, the politics of "justice" is becoming more corrupt (or you could say is as corrupt as ever). Life imprinsonment without possibility of parole might not reform someone for the purpose of his returning to society, but it might afford him the opportunity to repent before God and maybe even be used by God within the prison system. As Gandalf says, "Even the very wise cannot see all ends". |
|
|
|
Post by dinadan on Aug 22, 2005 15:51:40 GMT -5
Amen.
|
|
|
|
Post by laurelin on Aug 23, 2005 12:22:52 GMT -5
Capital punishment, from a strictly ethical (politically, or something) can't be instituted for vengeance, or even justice. I agree that no person can decide who has the right to live or die, and we shouldn't base our system on some abstract sense of justice. The responsibility fo the state toward crime is protection. It isn't that we haven't the right to decide someone should die, but that we have the responsibility to ensure the safety of those that person has endangered.
From a religious standpoint, I agree with Tinidril that killing someone, even the most despicable criminals, takes away the chance of repentence. It's hard to say we should allow that punishment when the cost is so high.
On the other side of the matter, it's ultimately the criminal who is responsible for his soul. It sounds harsh, I guess, but you can't force feed someone salvation. There are innocent people who starve to death while we keep murderers alive, and neither of them has a soul more valuable than the other. I pity the people who die without salvation, no matter who they are, but we can't keep them alive just to give them infinite chances of redemption. No one has that.
(A roundabout sort of argument, but I think I've only just decided what I meant to say.)
|
|
