Does Law Have a Right to Put Someone to Death ?

[phoneyLogic]

Equal rights for all.

 

If one would have the right to put someone to death, then everyone else should have exatcly this right too.

 

I dont like the idea of superspecial powers for superspecial beings.

[jaysus]

good example of kants categorical imperative :P

 

question: if everyone had that power and would use it would mankind live on?

 

answer: no

 

hence: the right to put other to death is not right

[phoneyLogic]

Equal rights for all.

 

If one would have the right to put someone to death, then everyone else should have exatcly this right too.

 

I dont like the idea of superspecial powers for superspecial beings.

good example of kants categorical imperative :P

 

question: if everyone had that power and would use it would mankind live on?

 

answer: no

 

hence: the right to put other to death is not right

Yeah, this would probably solve all demographic problems instantly :P. We don't need to rely on Stones or Bows and Arrows, we do have some much deadlier things somewhere in a cupboard. ^^

[Balagor]

Is killing a right, a duty, an assignment, a sport, or just a necessery act .........?

[phoneyLogic]

Is killing a right, a duty, an assignment, a sport, or just a necessery act .........?

If you need to kill some rabits, cause you want something to eat, then it's called hunting. There is a reasonable sence behind this and it has nothing to do with those relations between human beings.

 

In other words: You should try to separate human civilisation and "natural laws" which applies in jungle.

Because, well civilisation and jungle are two different things.

 

So in a civilised view, killing is neither a right, a duty, an assignment, a sport nor necessary. It's a crime and absolutely unnecessary.

 

Civilisation ends where the killing begins.

[species5478]

Pagafyr

 

Hey! All...

Are you reading the text from the original bible in its ancient dialect, a 4000 year old language, and giving it careful consideration to be allowable in English, or are you assuming that the text from a translation in another language is accurate enough to be taken for granted?

 

If you are going to use the dialog it would be best if you have a clear understanding of the Original Bibles meaning's from those minds who wrote the original, and not base your opinion's on some translation that is imperfect because the person learned the language when it was considered a Dead Language which they were barely able to translate with the help of someone who claimed to be efficient in the old language. I ask, "does anyone presently know of what the original authors thoughts were, how they perceived the world, and the way people thought when that Original Bible was written?"

 

Otherwise you have no premise for your discussion with which to use it as a reference book. The King James Version, the Mormon version, and any other that was translated into English UK or English US is likely flawed or maybe enhanced enough to be a better reference. As long as the linquists did an exemplary job and did not put their assumed thoughts of meanings into the work then it could be acceptable. To believe the works to be so clean as not to have assumed meanings mixed in though presents a problem. The problem that linguists deal with every day is, "They are "NOT" sure we even think alike enough with the ancients to be able to comprehend their works.

 

Be careful when you use dialog that is translated from ancient languages for it may not mean what you think. And it is always recommended that the readers of the Holy Bible read it more than once so that any interpretations they might think they find is sound be examined again to confirm whether, as they age and their minds mature, if the meanings that they derived from readings still hold the same sound meanings in their thought.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Pagafyr...your statement seems to imply, that I shouldn't use religious text from the Bible because I don't know the "true" meaning of what the original authors were trying to convey. But if that's the case, then we shouldn't use any form of written word, including the laws that are on the books today. The entire reason for having a trial, is to debate and decipher the laws that are on the books. We constantly struggle with how to interpret current laws because the same charge of muder, or whether or not to use the death penatly, can produce different outcomes, for different people. (or if overturned, a different outcome for the same person) And even though we have written laws that were made yesterday, everybody can view the same law differently. So of course I don't what ancient Bible authors were "truly" trying to convey, or what their "true" intentions were. I don't even know what current judges, or the laws they represent, are trying to convey, or what their true intentions are, half of the time. You said "I should be careful when using a dialogue that is translated from ancient language for it may not mean what I think..." But doesn't the same apply to current law? Most people don't "know" how to interpret the confusing language of our judicial system. That's why they hire attorneys. Do you, for instance, feel confident enough to defend yourself in court, if you were accused of murder? Unless you're a lawyer, (and probably even if you are) I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say no. You'd hire an attorney who specializes in these types of cases. Fact is, if you and I lived in the age when the Bible was written, there would still be a debate over what it means.

 

 

rebalious

You guys should know religion=banhammer

Even when you are careful with your arguments.

Just drop the bible references, its for your own good.

 

 

My orginal intent was only to demonstrate that there are different laws. I'm really not trying to widdle the discussion down to what the Bible, or any religion, says or means. My original point, was that there's different laws out there, for different parts of society. Some are the same. Others aren't. But it's absurd to ask me to drop the Bible references from this discussion. Religion in just about any form, is about morality, and or moral laws. And the question on whether laws have a right to put someone to death, is one of the most moral questions that can be asked. Above adultery. Above theft. In facts, murder or killing probably trumps any other act in human society. And the post doesn't stipulate "what" law we're talking about. There are many laws, from various aspects of society. Government provide only one form of law. Religion is another. I can break "laws" all the way down to my individual code of conduct. Or the "laws" that guide my househouse, or what people are allowed to do in my car. For instance, my friends aren't allowed to smoke in when riding with me. That's my law and if it's not obeyed, then they can get out and walk, as punishment.

[CommanderCrazy]

Yes.

and to all the people who said no:

 

Saddam Hussein.

 

Think of what would have happened if he wasnt killed.....

He committed great crimes in his seat of power, & he paid for it dearly.

Locking up the problem does not solve it, Just hides it away and lets it mature.

If you hide the problem, It only gets worse. If you completely remove the problem, It all gets better.

[Balagor]

Yes.

and to all the people who said no:

 

Saddam Hussein.

 

Think of what would have happened if he wasnt killed.....

He committed great crimes in his seat of power, & he paid for it dearly.

Locking up the problem does not solve it, Just hides it away and lets it mature.

If you hide the problem, It only gets worse. If you completely remove the problem, It all gets better.

 

Very black and white.

He is one of those I do not miss, and I welcome his dead, even though I voted NO.

Also he could have been sentenced to life in max secure prison.

Dead or alive, the situation still got worse when American troops were ordered into

Iraq by Bush jr., not to protect democracy, but to protect second largest oil reserves of the world.

Today the problem is even worse, some want him back (impossible of cause), they think it was better before.

Were we to hasty with the death sentence?

[Deleted54170User]

No matter how ill translated books we have to day, it does not matter.

They are translated with our minds, in our time, and if it fits into our way

of living/thinking we can use all ancient books.

 

I am saying your ability to compare works should not be diluted with unknowns. Your own thoughts should be based on the experience gained from having explored the ways of all people and animal base life with a clarification to what you learned from books. The Original Holy Bible is a reference of the era.

 

Can you see the references in your daily activities so you can make notes of how you find them similar with a dead language you may not understand?

 

I'm not challenging your rights to use the scriptures of any holy work. As they all are topics of the era they were written and were favored by the scholastic society. The poor and those who do not strengthen their minds by reading, writing, and mathematics seldom know the fine details we are aware of.

 

Can we justify our own decisions to judge someone who is not as intellectual as we are?

Can we justify our own comprehension of what books sentence structures contain without first realizing the worth of those words?

Wouldn't it be better if we could comprehend what the words mean by going out in the wilderness beyond the front door of safety of the house?

 

As I child I found myself wandering the streets of a city during hours of the day in which I found in the three or four blocks I managed to travel exploring as a three year old all the streets appear quiet, empty, and until a single dog barked alerting me there was another creature around on the other side of a hedge behind a fence it was not clear to my mind that anyone existended outside the work areas further away.

 

I was taken to church at a church I did not feel comfortable being there and I later was invited to a members house and discovered we were there for a young mans birthday. I had played in the earlier classes nearby with others but really did not know him. As we were sitting around he was asked to say a prayer out of the text of the King James version. He gave the name of the part of the bible, the chapter, verse, line number, and said the prayer line for line, as well.

 

I was still a very opened minded child at 5, curious about everything, and when he finished I wanted him to explain what the verse meant as a whole. He became flustered and confusion fell upon his face. It appeared to me he was only taught to memorize everything, and had not been analyzing it, and comparing it to daily life.

I am sure it may have served him well though because as life continued he may well have had enough experiences in his exploration of the wilderness outside his family home to realize the answer I sought.

 

 

Pagafyr

 

Hey! All...

Are you reading the text from the original bible in its ancient dialect, a 4000 year old language, and giving it careful consideration to be allowable in English, or are you assuming that the text from a translation in another language is accurate enough to be taken for granted?

 

If you are going to use the dialog it would be best if you have a clear understanding of the Original Bibles meaning's from those minds who wrote the original, and not base your opinion's on some translation that is imperfect because the person learned the language when it was considered a Dead Language which they were barely able to translate with the help of someone who claimed to be efficient in the old language. I ask, "does anyone presently know of what the original authors thoughts were, how they perceived the world, and the way people thought when that Original Bible was written?"

 

Otherwise you have no premise for your discussion with which to use it as a reference book. The King James Version, the Mormon version, and any other that was translated into English UK or English US is likely flawed or maybe enhanced enough to be a better reference. As long as the linquists did an exemplary job and did not put their assumed thoughts of meanings into the work then it could be acceptable. To believe the works to be so clean as not to have assumed meanings mixed in though presents a problem. The problem that linguists deal with every day is, "They are "NOT" sure we even think alike enough with the ancients to be able to comprehend their works.

 

Be careful when you use dialog that is translated from ancient languages for it may not mean what you think. And it is always recommended that the readers of the Holy Bible read it more than once so that any interpretations they might think they find is sound be examined again to confirm whether, as they age and their minds mature, if the meanings that they derived from readings still hold the same sound meanings in their thought.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Pagafyr...your statement seems to imply, that I shouldn't use religious text from the Bible because I don't know the "true" meaning of what the original authors were trying to convey. But if that's the case, then we shouldn't use any form of written word, including the laws that are on the books today. The entire reason for having a trial, is to debate and decipher the laws that are on the books. We constantly struggle with how to interpret current laws because the same charge of muder, or whether or not to use the death penatly, can produce different outcomes, for different people. (or if overturned, a different outcome for the same person) And even though we have written laws that were made yesterday, everybody can view the same law differently. So of course I don't what ancient Bible authors were "truly" trying to convey, or what their "true" intentions were. I don't even know what current judges, or the laws they represent, are trying to convey, or what their true intentions are, half of the time. You said "I should be careful when using a dialogue that is translated from ancient language for it may not mean what I think..." But doesn't the same apply to current law? Most people don't "know" how to interpret the confusing language of our judicial system. That's why they hire attorneys. Do you, for instance, feel confident enough to defend yourself in court, if you were accused of murder? Unless you're a lawyer, (and probably even if you are) I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say no. You'd hire an attorney who specializes in these types of cases. Fact is, if you and I lived in the age when the Bible was written, there would still be a debate over what it means.

 

 

rebalious

You guys should know religion=banhammer

Even when you are careful with your arguments.

Just drop the bible references, its for your own good.

 

 

My orginal intent was only to demonstrate that there are different laws. I'm really not trying to widdle the discussion down to what the Bible, or any religion, says or means. My original point, was that there's different laws out there, for different parts of society. Some are the same. Others aren't. But it's absurd to ask me to drop the Bible references from this discussion. Religion in just about any form, is about morality, and or moral laws. And the question on whether laws have a right to put someone to death, is one of the most moral questions that can be asked. Above adultery. Above theft. In facts, murder or killing probably trumps any other act in human society. And the post doesn't stipulate "what" law we're talking about. There are many laws, from various aspects of society. Government provide only one form of law. Religion is another. I can break "laws" all the way down to my individual code of conduct. Or the "laws" that guide my househouse, or what people are allowed to do in my car. For instance, my friends aren't allowed to smoke in when riding with me. That's my law and if it's not obeyed, then they can get out and walk, as punishment.

 

***I am trying to get the local minds comprehended meanings which they are able to cross reference with what they have learned from reading and give their own thought on subject materials from their own experience.***

 

There are laws that are still quite obvious today about hunting rights. We can hunt certain animals when there is an abundance of them and not others as they are close to extinction. I recall reading in the King James version that the people were subjected to similar rules and laws to only hunt certain animals that they could eat. Therefore I saw a similarity in real time and the past. Their reasons in the past was because some animals were unclean. Until they had been proven otherwise they were told not to hunt them.

Were some kinds of fish once on the list of the unclean because they thought we were descendants of that life form?

If so, then, if we killed a fish were we a murderer?

 

Are we killing for reasons condoned by all on the Earth who can think and comprehend the act?

Or is it only a particular community whose ideals a party may offend?

 

If we can conceive it in our minds the words go like this, "If you can think it, then it has been done." I recall a debate where they wanted to know if Jesus Christ meant, "If by thinking about the crime you have already committed it...versus...If you can think it it has already happened and we are only reviewing what sense it made and trying to decide what options we think are best."

 

Here we are thinking about a law, not a man. Does the law make it so we think before we do?

Or is it a conscious effort by and for the scholastic family to teach their child to think before they act.

I know the child I wrote of knew every author, number, letter, and word in the King James version of the Bible, but he did not have a great capacity at that time of what the words all meant.

[Deleted54170User]

Yes.

and to all the people who said no:

 

Saddam Hussein.

 

Think of what would have happened if he wasnt killed.....

He committed great crimes in his seat of power, & he paid for it dearly.

Locking up the problem does not solve it, Just hides it away and lets it mature.

If you hide the problem, It only gets worse. If you completely remove the problem, It all gets better.

 

Very black and white.

He is one of those I do not miss, and I welcome his dead, even though I voted NO.

Also he could have been sentenced to life in max secure prison.

Dead or alive, the situation still got worse when American troops were ordered into

Iraq by Bush jr., not to protect democracy, but to protect second largest oil reserves of the world.

Today the problem is even worse, some want him back (impossible of cause), they think it was better before.

Were we to hasty with the death sentence?

 

I asked that same question to a group I had attended once. The response I got was from a person only a a notch or two higher on the common crowds life rankings. He had not been in the military as I had. He said, "What do you mean by, 'We'?" I recall it was just after the, "Battle of Wounded Knee".

 

It was flattening, yes, "Flattening" to my ego when somewhere else on earth someone had asked the same question and it got on the news. "What do you mean by, 'We', .....man?" What was even more shocking to my system was a person of no ethicity of the people I walked up to, to say, "hi" to because I thought we were on a familiar level being both of the Viet Nam era Veteran's and before I could open my mouth he said, "Don't judge me until you walked a mile in my moccasins!" I had not read the book as of that time and thought he was out of his mind.

 

I took his meaning the wrong way and walked two miles carrying his life's burden on my shoulders unawares of the fact until my journey was brought to a halt by someone who saw my admiration for the guy and corrected my opinion of him in time so I live today to tell you about.

 

So, "Have any of you walked a mile in the shoes of anyone in particular that could have given you enough understanding to be able to judge them fairly?"