btownmeggy wrote:Ooh, so this is one of the issues in which you're supposed to believe the Old Testament, not the New Testament. Sorry, it's hard for me to keep it straight when the Old Testament is right and when the New Testament is.
Well, if you don't believe that the Bible is correct then I wouldn't expect you be able to distinguish between the civil laws and the spiritual laws that it prescribes. You would have to get beyond the bias that it is false in the first place. I hope that doesn't sound sarcastic because it's not meant to be. I'm simply saying that if you accepted its premise as being correct then you would want to do further study and examine the laws for yourself.
btownmeggy wrote:My answer: I'm not sure there is an appropriate "penalty". I just don't know. While much evidences demonstrates that the presence or lack of the death penalty has no effect on murder rates, I do think that the possibility of imprisonment seems to deter people from committing many crimes, though usually not those caused by passion or an apparent necessity. I definitely don't think that there should be no repercussions for people who commit the sort of crimes that harm other people. Reciprocal MURDER is not the answer, for the moral and practical reasons that are being brought up repeatedly in this thread.
Well, at least you're being honest. I watched the O'Reilly factor once where he said he would work convicted murderers to death up in the Alaskan refuge area. He said he would make thier lives so miserable that they would beg for the death penalty. That sounds good on the surface, but that sounds more like revenge to me. What do you think about his position?
I disagree that capital punishment is murder. The murder was committed by the original law-breaker. The state is killing the murderer in order to prevent it from happening again. I distinguish between murder and killing.