toldailytopic: Is it always wrong to kill another human?

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
Of course. Rather than reading the source I supplied which disproves your claim that society is safe when murderers are kept alive, you dismiss my examples as *emotional*.
Do you execute EVERYONE who has killed someone else for whatever reason because they MIGHT do it again?

It would not matter how many examples I cited of murderers escaping from prison or individuals such as Singleton being released so he can go on to murder.
How was his being released from prison HIS fault?

Your focus is on keeping the guilty alive even though it is possible for them to re-offend.
It is possible that they aren't guilty at all and you'd be condoning the execution of an innocent person . . . sad.

You shrug off the deaths committed at their hands as part of life and focus on protecting them.
Life . . . death . . . what else is there?

Where is your concern for their future victims and the family members whose lives are forever changed, devastated and even ruined?
What was that movie . . . oh, yeah . . . Minority Report.
 

Selaphiel

Well-known member
Rusha said:
Actually it is an either or situation.

Can dead murderers ever reoffend? Can LIVING murderers ever reoffend?

Of course they cannot reoffend if they are dead. However, if people escape from prisons, what is the issue? Prison security or the fact that we aren't killing the prisoners? You act as though your solution is the only one and that the lives of the offenders are not worth anything, which you achieve through de-humanizing them as in likening them to tumors.

Not *all* criminals can be rehabilitated.

No, we might not be successful in rehabilitating certain prisoners, but we can secure them.

Nor should we try to rehabilitate certain offenders

Why?

Forgiveness is not for me or you, but rather for the VICTIMS and the victim's surviving family members and friends.

It is for both. But the most important one is the forgiveness of the victims and their relatives.

The only way to alleviate a deadly *proven* threat is to permanently remove it.

Which we should be able to achieve with high security prisons. And if we fail, it is the security that is the issue.

Should we kill the potentially dangerous people in mental asylums as well or should our goal be to cure and rehabilitate them?

It is not just the death penalty that needs reform in the US. Your entire penal system needs reform, since it is built around the concept of punishment rather than that of rehabilitation. As a result, the prisons are inhumane and I wouldn't say that it is unlikely that that is a contributing factor to escape attempts as well.
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Of course they cannot reoffend if they are dead. However, if people escape from prisons, what is the issue?

The *issue* is that by allowing them to live, they are still a risk to others. Inside OR outside of prison. Prison is for reform. I would much rather keep an individual who committed theft, fraud or even assault alive because THEY can actually be reformed.

Prison security or the fact that we aren't killing the prisoners?

Prison security wouldn't be an issue if we didn't allow the most threatening of criminals to continue breathing ... and eating ... and entertaining themselves.

You act as though your solution is the only one

It is ...

and that the lives of the offenders are not worth anything,

They aren't ...

which you achieve through de-humanizing them as in likening them to tumors.

They de-humanized themselves by virtue of their actions. I am just offering a valid comparison as to the threat they continue to be while alive.

No, we might not be successful in rehabilitating certain prisoners, but we can secure them.

How much more security from them is necessary if they are dead?


Let me ask you this, Selaphiel: Would you feel comfortable if you knew that someone such as Larry Singleton was living next door to you and your family?

It is for both. But the most important one is the forgiveness of the victims and their relatives.

Forgiveness is a very personal thing. IF it helps the person in question, great. However, I do not expect or demand something from someone else that I would might not/would not be able to do myself.

Which we should be able to achieve with high security prisons. And if we fail, it is the security that is the issue.

Sigh. No ... it's not the prison. It's not the security. It's the
C R I M I N A L. Do you really believe that if you put them in a cell and they find a way to chisel out a weapon from inside their cell that they won't use it because it's against the rules?

Should we kill the potentially dangerous people in mental asylums as well

That depends on the person and IF they have actually harmed or murdered someone. People such as Andrea Yates and Susan Smith should have received the death penalty.

or should our goal be to cure and rehabilitate them?

Only if they *can* be rehabilitated ...

If they can't, then I would say the same thing to someone wishing to rehabilitate Cujo or Old Yeller. "They are mad. A danger. They won't quit frothing at the mouth until their heart stops beating. Pet them on the nose if you wish, but don't expect me not to shoot them should they come rushing at me, snapping and snarling".

It is not just the death penalty that needs reform in the US. Your entire penal system needs reform, since it is built around the concept of punishment rather than that of rehabilitation. As a result, the prisons are inhumane and I wouldn't say that it is unlikely that that is a contributing factor to escape attempts as well.

We are discussing criminals who are put to death for the *inhumane* actions towards others. Just how humane should we treat these infested putrid walking entities of malice?
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
I never agree with you. But I must say "Amen" for this one. :up:
Fool.


  1. According to the Law Jesus was not recognized as a priest, or a judge.
  2. The Law required the man and the woman be stoned.
  3. The Law required two or three witnesses; there were none when Jesus asked.
  4. The Law required that if they could not come to a decision themselves, the citizens must go to a place designated by God, before a priest and a judge; instead they went to Jesus, wherever He happened to be.
  5. Jesus did not witness the act.
So, explain to us, in what way did the Law give Jesus the right to condemn her?


You would be bound by love to give your life for the child and to not take the life of the criminal. You would resist the criminal sufficiently enough to create the opportunity for the child to escape and then commit your life to God without resisting the criminal. God will either spare your life or He will call you to lay down your life.

Jesus plainly said "resist not evil."

Great shall be your reward in heaven.
So let the attacker kill you, then rape and kill the child?

You're a hero!:rolleyes:

Wow! What an asinine statement! According to the law Jesus should have condemned her.
Fool.


  1. According to the Law Jesus was not recognized as a priest, or a judge.
  2. The Law required the man and the woman be stoned.
  3. The Law required two or three witnesses; there were none when Jesus asked.
  4. The Law required that if they could not come to a decision themselves, the citizens must go to a place designated by God, before a priest and a judge; instead they went to Jesus, wherever He happened to be.
  5. Jesus did not witness the act.
So, explain to us, in what way did the Law give Jesus the right to condemn her?

He didn't condemn her because He LOVED her and there is no law against love. Paul said that love is the fulfillment of the law.
How is any of this even relevant?

More stupidity. No condemnation = forgiveness.
In order for there to be forgiveness there must first be judgment, which means there must be some amount of condemnation. Jesus did not judge her as guilty, thus He had no reason to forgive her.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Inherent in the statement "sin no more" is recognition that the woman had been sinning
All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Recognizing that is not judging her as having committed that specific sin in question.

Also, my statement was not about sin; it was about crime. Jesus did not judge her guilty of the specific crime, according to the Law.
 

Delmar

Patron Saint of SMACK
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
That's not the point. You want to kill the killer. That's better known as blood lust.
That is a completely erroneous description of the phrase. I do not desire the blood of murderers and rapists. I desire a criminal justice system that teaches people they dare not become murderers and rapists!
You're as clueless about this as you are about the woman in adultery (Jesus asked where are your accusers . . . not where are the witnesses against you . . . two different things).
They are exactly the same thing in this context! Jesus and the woman stood there alone. There were no witnesses to testify against her.
 
Last edited:

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Of course. Rather than reading the source I supplied which disproves your claim that society is safe when murderers are kept alive, you dismiss my examples as *emotional*.

It would not matter how many examples I cited of murderers escaping from prison or individuals such as Singleton being released so he can go on to murder. Your focus is on keeping the guilty alive even though it is possible for them to re-offend.

You shrug off the deaths committed at their hands as part of life and focus on protecting them. Where is your concern for their future victims and the family members whose lives are forever changed, devastated and even ruined?

He is never going to understand, some folks just cannot go there.

I taught policing awhile, a class full of police officers in uniform. There is always some older man who thinks my body prevents me from being able to take him further into the reality, that possibility that the police may have to shoot someone not in self-defense. Some die because they think too much. We need them, or we would have more violent crime. There are too many criminals who unintentionally shot someone and there are those who deliberatly choose to murder..
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
The only possible occassion where killing might be necessary would be if it is absolutely the only way to save an innocent life at the cost of an assailant.

The death penalty is barbaric and serves absolutely no purpose in a society that can protect the public in other ways that does not include loss of any life, it does nothing but satisfy the bloodlust of the people. Mercy is greater than vengeance.

Did I say that?

Prison is necessary to protect the general public as long as the person in question is a danger to society. However, the purpose of prison should be rehabilitation, not mere retribution. Cruel and inhumane prison should not be an element in a civilized modern society.
Some think as you do, some build prisons that the public would screen about, if done to an animal. Lucky you have some that will do what is a necessity.

Some say capital punishment is a deterrence, yet this is very seldom true. There are those who do not plan on killing, yet lose control and kill and there are some who plan on killing; the later have no fear of death, while the former do not think they will face capital punishment in the first place.

Some are against the death penalty because it costs so much; some say it was better when one convicted were hung after found guilty.

Most obvious, the death penalty does not change behaviour!

There is very little rehabilitation in prisons today, and the confinement is not equal. Some would rather die than face life in a cell alone 23 hours a day, some perfer it over being constantly abused, and loss of humanity.

There is no nice answer.
 
Top