Does Law Have a Right to Put Someone to Death ?

[species5478]

If a person doesn't believe in the death penalty, or that laws don't have the right to put someone to death, then this person would believe that we are all equal, and that everyone has the same intentions. And that there is no such thing as good and evil. The belief must be, that we are like ants, all marching along to the same goal. Therefore, we cannot kill each other, because we are all identical.

 

If a person believes in the death penalty, then they would believe that we are not a collective mind. We are individuals. And as individuals, there are some who maintain the belief, that murder is wrong. There are other individuals, who believe murder is right. But really analyze the significance of the two...because for every Pope, or Ghandhi, or Jesus, there is a Jeffery Dahmer eating people and stuffing their body parts in a refrigerator. Any person willing to kill another, has forfeited their right to live.

[Deleted54170User]

If a person doesn't believe in the death penalty, or that laws don't have the right to put someone to death, then this person would believe that we are all equal, and that everyone has the same intentions. And that there is no such thing as good and evil. The belief must be, that we are like ants, all marching along to the same goal. Therefore, we cannot kill each other, because we are all identical.

 

If a person believes in the death penalty, then they would believe that we are not a collective mind. We are individuals. And as individuals, there are some who maintain the belief, that murder is wrong. There are other individuals, who believe murder is right. But really analyze the significance of the two...because for every Pope, or Ghandhi, or Jesus, there is a Jeffery Dahmer eating people and stuffing their body parts in a refrigerator. Any person willing to kill another, has forfeited their right to live.

 

The logic of what you say is limited to your own thinking, your race, color, creed, and ethnicity.

I remember that there were people in the 1950's who were and may still be cannibals. There were pygmies in Africa that the National Geographic found and reported that were cannibals. EDIT: They fought with other pygmy tribes.

 

A person who leaves their tribal methods and gives them up for one or another species so they can live in peace with the new group accepts the protocol as we must except theirs if we move into their country and expect to exist within their customs. When in Rome do as the Roman's.

 

Although the various order's, religion's, and intellectual's may encourage the thought of the laws they believe in to such as the Pygmie's they do not have the reponsibility to us to change. If a serial killer is a cannibal is caught in another country killing peopple for food they are at risk to fall under our countries laws. Although there are those Pygmies who still do not hold the custom of eating their enemies as an appalling thing. In fact it was written that they believe eating their enemies after battle gives them their enemies strength, honor, and soul power strengthening the winner.

 

If this or that were always true in every place on Earth we would be a collective, have a single mind, and be connected to a collective consciousness.

 

Who is to say we are not, and yet, it could be a collective consciousness that is diverse?

[species5478]

If a person doesn't believe in the death penalty, or that laws don't have the right to put someone to death, then this person would believe that we are all equal, and that everyone has the same intentions. And that there is no such thing as good and evil. The belief must be, that we are like ants, all marching along to the same goal. Therefore, we cannot kill each other, because we are all identical.

 

If a person believes in the death penalty, then they would believe that we are not a collective mind. We are individuals. And as individuals, there are some who maintain the belief, that murder is wrong. There are other individuals, who believe murder is right. But really analyze the significance of the two...because for every Pope, or Ghandhi, or Jesus, there is a Jeffery Dahmer eating people and stuffing their body parts in a refrigerator. Any person willing to kill another, has forfeited their right to live.

 

The logic of what you say is limited to your own thinking, your race, color, creed, and ethnicity.

I remember that there were people in the 1950's who were and may still be cannibals. There were pygmies in Africa that the National Geographic found and reported that were cannibals. EDIT: They fought with other pygmy tribes.

 

A person who leaves their tribal methods and gives them up for one or another species so they can live in peace with the new group accepts the protocol as we must except theirs if we move into their country and expect to exist within their customs. When in Rome do as the Roman's.

 

Although the various order's, religion's, and intellectual's may encourage the thought of the laws they believe in to such as the Pygmie's they do not have the reponsibility to us to change. If a serial killer is a cannibal is caught in another country killing peopple for food they are at risk to fall under our countries laws. Although there are those Pygmies who still do not hold the custom of eating their enemies as an appalling thing. In fact it was written that they believe eating their enemies after battle gives them their enemies strength, honor, and soul power strengthening the winner.

 

If this or that were always true in every place on Earth we would be a collective, have a single mind, and be connected to a collective consciousness.

 

Who is to say we are not, and yet, it could be a collective consciousness that is diverse?

 

I like you. :biggrin: You have an amazing ability for stating the obvious. :thumbsup: The logic of what you are saying, dear Pagafyr, is limited to your own thinking, your race, color, creed, and ethnicity...too. Unless you're God, have traveled to every tribe, and infiltrated the minds of every person, then your logic will be limited to your own thinking, your race, color, creed, and ethnicity...

 

Again...if the question is, does law have a right to put someone to death. I say yes.

 

As a Marine, I've lived in several different countries, and have immersed myself within their cultures. Exposing myself to a variance of opinions, is why I came to this conclusion. I think people, especially those how have never left the country, or maybe even their state, will not have experienced what I have, and will probably see the value in legalized executions if they see what I see. Maybe not. Now, I would agree with people who say legalized execution is wrong, IF people naturally lived forever. But we don't. We die. It's a natural part of life. An inescapable part of life. There's nothing odd or crazy about death. It's a natural occurrence. But if you don't believe the law has a right to put someone to death, then stand by your convictions. If someone breaks into your home, and rapes and murders your mom, child, or family member; then defend yourself but DON'T kill them. You must allow them to live, even if it means sacrificing yourself.

[Balagor]

If someone breaks into your home, and rapes and murders your mom, child, or family member; then defend yourself but DON'T kill them. You must allow them to live, even if it means sacrificing yourself.

 

I know I take this out of a sentence. Though I do not fully agree on the death sentence part (we can agree that we do not agree lol),

this is another situation. Were my family, myself or my friends abused/attacked by some crazed weirdo, and I felt my life or the life

of my dear ones threatened, I would NOT hesitate to answer back with force, even deadly should it be on purpose or accidentially.

And I feel no moral issues about it, in such a situation it could my life, or his/hers life.

[Deleted54170User]

If a person doesn't believe in the death penalty, or that laws don't have the right to put someone to death, then this person would believe that we are all equal, and that everyone has the same intentions. And that there is no such thing as good and evil. The belief must be, that we are like ants, all marching along to the same goal. Therefore, we cannot kill each other, because we are all identical.

 

If a person believes in the death penalty, then they would believe that we are not a collective mind. We are individuals. And as individuals, there are some who maintain the belief, that murder is wrong. There are other individuals, who believe murder is right. But really analyze the significance of the two...because for every Pope, or Ghandhi, or Jesus, there is a Jeffery Dahmer eating people and stuffing their body parts in a refrigerator. Any person willing to kill another, has forfeited their right to live.

 

The logic of what you say is limited to your own thinking, your race, color, creed, and ethnicity.

I remember that there were people in the 1950's who were and may still be cannibals. There were pygmies in Africa that the National Geographic found and reported that were cannibals. EDIT: They fought with other pygmy tribes.

 

A person who leaves their tribal methods and gives them up for one or another species so they can live in peace with the new group accepts the protocol as we must except theirs if we move into their country and expect to exist within their customs. When in Rome do as the Roman's.

 

Although the various order's, religion's, and intellectual's may encourage the thought of the laws they believe in to such as the Pygmie's they do not have the reponsibility to us to change. If a serial killer is a cannibal is caught in another country killing peopple for food they are at risk to fall under our countries laws. Although there are those Pygmies who still do not hold the custom of eating their enemies as an appalling thing. In fact it was written that they believe eating their enemies after battle gives them their enemies strength, honor, and soul power strengthening the winner.

 

If this or that were always true in every place on Earth we would be a collective, have a single mind, and be connected to a collective consciousness.

 

Who is to say we are not, and yet, it could be a collective consciousness that is diverse?

 

I like you. :biggrin: You have an amazing ability for stating the obvious. :thumbsup: The logic of what you are saying, dear Pagafyr, is limited to your own thinking, your race, color, creed, and ethnicity...too. Unless you're God, have traveled to every tribe, and infiltrated the minds of every person, then your logic will be limited to your own thinking, your race, color, creed, and ethnicity...

 

Again...if the question is, does law have a right to put someone to death. I say yes.

 

As a Marine, I've lived in several different countries, and have immersed myself within their cultures. Exposing myself to a variance of opinions, is why I came to this conclusion. I think people, especially those how have never left the country, or maybe even their state, will not have experienced what I have, and will probably see the value in legalized executions if they see what I see. Maybe not. Now, I would agree with people who say legalized execution is wrong, IF people naturally lived forever. But we don't. We die. It's a natural part of life. An inescapable part of life. There's nothing odd or crazy about death. It's a natural occurrence. But if you don't believe the law has a right to put someone to death, then stand by your convictions. If someone breaks into your home, and rapes and murders your mom, child, or family member; then defend yourself but DON'T kill them. You must allow them to live, even if it means sacrificing yourself.

 

Even if I did state an official state of the art of Law I would still not be able to declare what you do for I have to live by the rules of those whose land I am graciously allowed to live. The only way to assure I am granted a safe place to abide while in Rome I must abide by the Roman's laws. So how and when do I get to chose my own way of thinking is determined. Someone made up the rules before I got here, even in the U. S. A. where I have been a captive audience most of my life.

 

Can a person who has never had a love, who they mated with, children, or elders who cared for them experience what you have?

Can an orphan who barely survived in a house amongst people whose struggle was purely superficial affection for winning the honor of being the winner one game at a time?

Can a person without a lineage who was fostered as an indentured servant?

Can I be certain that the law is so for the benefit of all people of Earth?

Or is the law as I have seen it on several occasions in theaters to be the local laws being used as a front of those who profess the law who back down the instant they perceive a greater strength then their own knocking at the court house doors?

 

I recall some children of a small neighborhood gathered together and built a club house out of scraps of lumber and made their club house rules/laws. I got to know them all a little. New members had to be blindfolded and dared to eat worms if they wanted to pass the local house rule for entering in as a solid member. If they did not like the person they used real earth worms, if they did like the person they used day old spaghetti.

 

So are their rules/laws any less or more formidable then, then later when they have become the city leaders? And I might add the towns main ruling class. Are they choosing according to the law or according to their childhood reference of likes and dislikes?

Would you get real earthworms or spaghetti noodle's?

 

I don't think anyone likes deciding to do anything above choosing their friends. It is so much easier to live with people we like and share spaghetti stories.

 

 

EDIT:

I have learned most of my words from books written by philosophers who lived and their words still exist from the last 30 centuries. Most recently I have formed my opinions after surfing for more thoughts and found people who do likewise. I see how human's perceived my words until they found a place which I could express myself with ease.

 

I have been eased back into the healthiest state of health while engaging in conversations with people, like you, who have experienced life in other lands. I knew several of those people for a short time up close and personal. I am the flagging cripple of an accident during my lifetime that left me to study and seek a path back to the realm we all call, "HOME".

[Deleted54170User]

If someone breaks into your home, and rapes and murders your mom, child, or family member; then defend yourself but DON'T kill them. You must allow them to live, even if it means sacrificing yourself.

 

I know I take this out of a sentence. Though I do not fully agree on the death sentence part (we can agree that we do not agree lol),

this is another situation. Were my family, myself or my friends abused/attacked by some crazed weirdo, and I felt my life or the life

of my dear ones threatened, I would NOT hesitate to answer back with force, even deadly should it be on purpose or accidentially.

And I feel no moral issues about it, in such a situation it could my life, or his/hers life.

 

The terms of your own mental resolve suggests as it is written, and means in layman terms, "all of the people of Earth are likely to defend them self in a life or death situation". Fight or run-away and/or take revenge on anyone who might burst in onto our social group and destroy part of the loving, caring, and familiar family or friends. This is human behavior when we do not have a orderly contest. Judging a person when they have finished and are on top of the heap of the losers will happen if there is anyone left to judge.

[AncientSpaceAeon]

If someone breaks into your home, and rapes and murders your mom, child, or family member; then defend yourself but DON'T kill them. You must allow them to live, even if it means sacrificing yourself.

So . . . we defend our family while at the same time try to let live the attacker, and we must let him/her live even if we have to sacriface yourself. I disagree. Why we have to sacriface ourselves ? Will that help us in any way ? The guilty deserves a punishment, but not a death punishment. We defend ourself but try not killing the attacker.

 

We forgive the ones who do something bad, punishment is used so they don't do that again, and hopefully change. Punishment is not for revenge or avenge, it's a lesson for the guilty.

[Deleted54170User]

If someone breaks into your home, and rapes and murders your mom, child, or family member; then defend yourself but DON'T kill them. You must allow them to live, even if it means sacrificing yourself.

So . . . we defend our family while at the same time try to let live the attacker, and we must let him/her live even if we have to sacriface yourself. I disagree. Why we have to sacriface ourselves ? Will that help us in any way ? The guilty deserves a punishment, but not a death punishment. We defend ourself but try not killing the attacker.

 

We forgive the ones who do something bad, punishment is used so they don't do that again, and hopefully change. Punishment is not for revenge or avenge, it's a lesson for the guilty.

 

If someone breaks into a house, whose to say they wont be greeted by a marine with a pistol who shoots them in the kneecaps and then calls the police and an ambulance? If someone is so stupid to break into a house to attack others whose to say they wont get a surprise? I mean, "STUPID"! They would if they broke into my house! And not the kind of surprise they're going to forget any time soon after.

 

How many thousands of people are there in your neighborhood?

 

How many of them are so pitifully lame brained as to allow someone to break down their door and let them beat and torture them?

 

This thread isn't about what you think merits the law to put someone to death. It is getting to be about that though.

 

Hey! While I am at it...A law is a bunch of written words agreed upon by a group of people as a reference for what they decide they think is needed so as to stop their own mental ambitions from getting out of control.

 

Logically speaking, "A bunch of people were always going out on raiding parties and pillaging the neighbors refrigerator, threatening to killi anyone who got in their way, and raping the women who tried to stop them, and/or taking the young woman captive for slave's. Which then was followed up by some revengeful townsmen who were out in the fields and did not get back to their house in time to stop the theives from stealing their beer, making it with their wife, and/or stealing their daughter and dragging her off to their town or village.

 

It got so crowding became a problem so a bunch of leaders in the townships and cities called a council and said, 'We have to stop doing this and that because we're just breaking too many bottles needed to store our beer in...and beside's that now my daughter can just walk a few minutes and she is back to our house making a mess when me and the wife are banging around in the goose down. It upset her mother so now so many times we can't do this bit anymore. Your boy has got to learn to get his own house and stop sending our girl home steal my beer any time day or night. We are just livign to close together to carry on like this any more. It was fun when we were young and doing it because nobody got hurt. The distance between our land was far enough apart the daughters would stay put. Then all the idiots being born started messing around with our ways and ruining for all of us."

 

Now these new laws were well and good but it did not stop some of the less fortunate who we usually made sleep in the barn anyways from going on raids when the horny old bull broke the gate down to get to cows. When our stupid lot of boys saw the gate down they grabbed the hard ware and went on a hunting party just like we used to before we decided to make these agreements. It is not our fault we did not know all the family incest was going to give us a bunch of children who over compensated with violence that led to real killing.

 

When we did it, it was just a game, and we threatened the woman with out sword between our legs and the wives swooned and played along. We did not have any trouble. But now look, we've got such a large lot of boys and girls who should be kept locked in the barn. We just can't control the situation anymore."

 

The young don't understand! They are just too darn stupid. and I can't bring myself to killing them for killing people cause their too darn ignorant to understand what they done wrong. Well maybe, "Butch" isn't all the stupid, but even if we made an example of him would the other's understand?

 

If you think we should use that threat we made called, 'The Death Penalty' and hang Butch outside with all the other children there watching maybe they will get the idea. Then again I just don't know...Butch still needs a good talking to for not following the gentlemen's way of pretending to threaten the women.

 

We have got way to many young who are all cousins now...maybe it is time we all got had a vasectomy and the wives got a historectomy?' I can't bring myself to go under the knife for that ball cutter myself, I just don't have the guts for it. And you never know I might need it again some day.

 

What do you say, "Should we drop the death penalty and have all those young boys and girls sent to the Veteranarian?"

Of course! We'll still have a problem keeping the beer stocked up, but how long can they live after they are less outgoing and excitable? They wont want to run away from the barn any more. Maybe we ought to think on it some more. I mean we ain't going to be able to move to Mars in the even we don't, but hey, we might be able to get a colony on the Moon started that will make our wives happy again."

[AncientSpaceAeon]

In my country there's someone poor who only stole one banana, and he could spend 7 years in jail. There's also a poor man, owning a pill of a type of drug, and get sentenced for 5 years. While a rich woman, own kilograms of it (if I'm not wrong), and only sentenced for 9 months. The same can happen to people who done a bigger crime (possibly with a punishment to death).

 

Death is a type of punishment that cannot be cancelled or reduced. If something goes wrong . . .

[Balagor]

Just followed a case on DK TV, about an ID theft.

A woman has stolen another womans ID.

For 4 years she managed to make loans, get cars (Mercerdes)

getting credit cards for shopping.

She ruin the other womans live for 4 years. The victim still has big

trouble with sorting a lot of paper work out, which will take years.

She also got devorced, because the family was breaking down,

so she is now alone with her 6 year old daughter.

She also suffers mentally and need to take medication, and see a therapist.

 

The convict got 8 month in jail, but SHE DOES NOT NEED TO DO THE TIME.

She had a suspended sentence.

When she left the court buildind, no journalists were permitted to speak to her (the convict).

She was protected by the police, because she was too fragile to speak with the media.

 

This crime I consider even worse, or at least equal to killing. Were the victim killed, she would feel no more.

Only the relatives would suffer.

But in this case, both she AND her relatives will suffer for live time.

 

What am I trying to say? I still do not agree on the death sentence, even though I am very close.

On the other hand, I feel my respect for justice weakened to a degree, when I see a punishment

totally out of proportions.

This will certainly NOT stop the convict from doing it again. A suspended sentence runs for 3 or 5 years,

and then she will be back in buisness.