Death Penalty for Murders
-
Peace Elena,
The classical questions, I see.
Self-defense in the only justified case. But don't confuse this with the other cases are being discussed here.Well, you are the one that said ?Even killing an ant is not right?. I guess it?s not right only so long as they are not eating your home?
And why is self-defense a justified case? Is your life ?more sacred? or worth more than the other person?
-
We all agree the life is very sacred and this is why it should be protected.
I understand your point but you defend the the murderer and you forgot the victim..I am not defending the murderer. I am defending the principle that life is sacred.
Except in the cause of justice.
To keep the innocent safe seems a very important reason to withdraw death penalty .
It is upon the justice to do her Job correctly because the defendent is innocent if the justice cannot provide the irrefutable proof if his guilt.
Yes marie, sometimes irrefutable proof of guild is overturned by later evidences and this has happened in countless cases in the UK alone. Death Penalty would have taken those innocent lives...
I do not believe in the fatality, and especially in justice. When the defendent always proclaims his innocence and the community also believe that he is innocent, the justice has to consider these opinions. The justice is a duty of the individual and the community.
The justice can liberate a murderer by mistake or lack of proof. As I stated above, when the defendent proclaims his innocence, the justice has not the right to do the deaf ear and condemn him.
The justice errors are the result of incomplete and subjective investigations (corruption, racism)...
There is a lot of works to improve the justice system. -
Also, when a person is killed for commiting murder, they are in-fact benefitting by paying the price of their crime on this Earth rather than having to pay for it with God in the Hearafter.
Won't they get punished in hell too?
yes. they will be punished in hell too.
-
Hello Noah,
You talk to much thats what you do, and you twisted my words out of proportion.
You seems to talk nonsense like the way you did on the "Why muslim shouldn't drink thread" because you think alcohol is flammable.
But this is what you wrote
"If some brutal simpleton kills and keeps on killing, i would put him out of
his misery instantly."and this is what I wrote
"Simpleton? If they are simpleton are they responsible for their
actions? And you would get rid of mentally deficient individuals?
sounds fascist to me, like Nazies..."And I ask you again - are mentally deficient individuals responsible for their actions? All the European nations do not consider it so nor do the many of the Asian countries and even some states in America.
And have you read history of fascism? and the Nazies, and what they did to the mentally retarded and physically deformed individuals? If you allow mentally deficient individulas to be killed this way then anything possible.
You ARE defending the killer, by defending that all life is sacred.
Are not human life sacred to you? Are we equal before God or some individuals more equal than others?
But God allready said that all life is sacred EXCEPT in the cause of justice.
The cause of justice, what do you think that might be?But I told you. Human justice is fallible and because of this fallibility
innocent lives will be lost because of the Death Penalty.Regards,
-
Hello David,
So any killing is wrong to you?
The question was is human life SACRED. The answer it seems to be a resounding YES. Then SOCIETY as whole should either uphold this principle or it should not.
If you have a bacterial infection, would you take antibiotics?
What about if you had mold in your bathtub, would you remove it, or does it deserve to live?David, David we have been discussing free willed human life here as opposed to bacterial cells that happened to infect your bath-tub or your armpit! If you can show that bacteria are conscious free willed spiritual organisms and thinks about transcendent God and then hey yes you can say use of antibiotics on them is wrong! -)
I find it interesting that someone who opposes seeing things as ?black and white? would hold the position that ?all life is sacred? and that any killing is wrong?no exceptions.
Perhaps David you should contemplate and reflect on the nature of free willed human LIFE, perhaps you could see the sanctity of human existence...
Regards,
-
Just to see if I undertsand the point of not killing a murderer...Some would say that having a person rot in jail for their entire lives is more 'merciful' than killing the murderer?
No. Some people are saying that society either upholds life as sacred or it does not. Some people are saying that we should not justify one murder with another murder because that will be lowering ourselves to the level of the murderer. Some people are saying that human justice is fallible and therefore as result of this innocent lives will be lost because of the Death Penalty.
If I had murdered someone and I was given the option to be executed immeditaly or rot in jail for the rest of my life, I would without hesitation take the first option (it is more merciful and more humane).
If God gave you life - why should another human being take it?
You find Prison unmerciful?
That is why it is called a punishment and not a holiday! In my view living with consquences of your actions is True Punishment. Choosing execution is a cowards way out!Regards,
-
Peace sis Marie and everyone,
We cannot generalize or apply the same punishment because it depends on each case.
Why don't we try to be 'judges' for the cases I put earlier, and some other cases that has been proposed here, as examples? They are
-
A person who puts down a terminally ill/injured person (euthanasia/mercy killing)
-
A person who kills in self defense
-
A person who bombed a crowded place, killing many people
-
A person whose orders result in a lot of killing
5a. A serial killer (without mental problems--kills intentionally)
5b. A serial killer (with mental problems--kills unintentionally)
- A person killing someone who oppresses him/her
For argument's sake let's suppose all of these persons have been found guilt beyond reasonable doubt (thereby eliminating the possibility of innocence excuse).
If you are a judge, whom among those people will receive a death penalty?
None. If these individuals are danger to themselves and other individuals and to the society they live in then they should remain in prison indefinatley...
Regards,
-
-
peace lote tree
You seems to talk nonsense like the way you did on the "Why muslim shouldn't drink thread" because you think alcohol is flammable.
So by using your way of turning my words, alcohol is not flammable is that what youre saying? Besides that, i didnt claim that people shoudnt drink because its flammable, i said that I wouldnt do it. The title of the thread was obviously (or rather less obviously apparently) ironic if you looked at the videolink posted.
And I ask you again - are mentally deficient individuals responsible for their actions?
No they are not
2 entries found for simpleton.
sim?ple?ton Audio pronunciation of "simpleton" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (smpl-tn)
n.A person who is felt to be deficient in judgment, good sense, or intelligence; a fool.
and that is not by default the same as some one who is
re?tard2 Audio pronunciation of "retards" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rt?rd)
n. Offensive Slang- Used as a disparaging term for a mentally retarded person.
- A person considered to be foolish or socially inept.
I used the word simpleton to describe a fool, defying the law of God. By slaying unjustly.
And have you read history of fascism? and the Nazies, and what they did to the mentally retarded and physically deformed individuals?
Yes i have, but i fail to see what it has to do with
1734 And do not kill, for God has made this forbidden, except in the course of justice. And whoever is killed unjustly, then We have given his heir authority, so let him not transgress in the taking of a life, for He will be given victory.
If you allow mentally deficient individulas to be killed this way then anything possible.
I dont, i was using a term that you bend around the auger to make a standpoint out of.
Are not human life sacred to you? Are we equal before God or some individuals more equal than others?
1734 And do not kill, for God has made this forbidden, except in the course of justice... there is no way around this one, along with
535 It is because of this that We have decreed for the Children of Israel "Anyone who kills a person who has not committed murder, or who has not committed corruption in the land; then it is as if he has killed all the people! And whoever spares a life, then it is as if he has given life to all the people." Our messengers had come to them with clarification, but many of them are, after this, still corrupting on the Earth.
A person who has not comitted murder, i dont see God withdrawing this anywhere. Justice is selfdefence, and in the case of murder, but its up to the kin of the murdered to decide. If forgiveness (prefered) is chosen, the man is forgiven, no ifs or buts, and will have his with God. He still have his life to live and a chance to make up for what happened, if he does it again, a new set of kin will his story given perhaps not be so kind.
But I told you. Human justice is fallible and because of this fallibility
innocent lives will be lost because of the Death Penalty.If applied in the system as it is i agree. But that is hardly the point. this system needs to change not Gods. Gods system is perfect, and yet unaplied. Besides what does he have to loose if he is killed unjustly. A heavenly reward, OMG!! we better not go there. God is just, and when we make err that is no exception.
Im sorry to come of as rude, but i took offence to your focus on a word, rather than a text. And from where im standing it looks as if your tying knots on yourself to get around what the Quran says about justified killing. But that hardly makes me a nazi, or ??
Regards
Noah -
peace
to make sure i get the message through. Killing the killer is not applied by default, but a right to seek justice the next of kin has. Though forgiveness is looked higher upon.
Regards
Noah -
If you are a judge, whom among those people will receive a death penalty?
None. If these individuals are danger to themselves and other individuals and to the society they live in then they should remain in prison indefinatley...
Regards,
Okay, that's one predictable answer from you. Good.
How about the others, anyone willing to offer their judgement? Noah? Saladin? Sis Marie? anyone?
The cases are
-
A person who puts down a terminally ill/injured person (euthanasia/mercy killing)
-
A person who kills in self defense
-
A person who bombed a crowded place, killing many people
-
A person whose orders result in a lot of killing (ie. a leader who orders an invasion to another country/people)
5a. A serial killer (without mental problems--kills intentionally)
5b. A serial killer (with mental problems--kills unintentionally)
- A person killing someone who oppresses him/her
If you are a judge, whom among those people will receive a death penalty?
-
-
Peace
- A person who puts down a terminally ill/injured person (euthanasia/mercy killing)
I honestly dont know, and this would altso invovle a debate on the ethics of keeping people alive with machinery at all. Im completely split on this matter.
- A person who kills in self defense
Should go free
- A person who bombed a crowded place, killing many people
If he survived, id vote for removing that person from the genepool.
This is altso a place where it gets tricky with applying the next of kin rule. Because there might be 100's of next of kins, and theres no saying if they are going to agree or not. However someone with that state of mind, and the criterion given that it is absolutely beyond doubt that the person did it, should be removed by the state for the protection of others, and without being a lifelong burden to others. That person has done enough!.- A person whose orders result in a lot of killing (ie. a leader who orders an invasion to another country/people)
Same as above if invasion. Opposite if defense. Both as country and as individual.
5a. A serial killer (without mental problems--kills intentionally)
The first next of kin, then the next, then etc.
5b. A serial killer (with mental problems--kills unintentionally)
The first of kin, then the next of kin then etc.
- A person killing someone who oppresses him/her
Tyranny is worse than murder. However. If someone is tyrant towards you, leave. if the person follow you, warn. If you are cornered and fell threatened srtike. If your life are but in danger, smite. As a society at the first glimpse of a tyrant raising, warn, then strike to kill.
If you are a judge, whom among those people will receive a death penalty?
Unless something is done to one of mine, i wont be. thank God. Because one thing is what the scriptures teaches, another is having the guts to take it to the bank. Im not sure i would have the guts to kill a person. But im not blind to how angered someone would be if the one they love the most are unjustly killed, and then revenge is permitted, though forgiveness is better. But in the case of murder, who would honestly say that they wouldnt want to apply eye for an eye. The right way to do it must be that the person demanding eye for an eye, do it him/herself.
You want justice, go and claim it.Regards
Noah -
If applied in the system as it is i agree. But that is hardly the point. this system needs to change not Gods. Gods system is perfect, and yet unaplied. Besides what does he have to loose if he is killed unjustly. A heavenly reward, OMG!! we better not go there. God is just, and when we make err that is no exception.
Innocent people have LOTS to lose if they have wife and kids and a loving family!
In a society of individuals with different beliefs we can't excuse the murder of innocents in hope of heavenly rewards!
Im sorry to come of as rude, but i took offence to your focus on a word, rather than a text.
First of all I am sorry to offend you. It was nothing personal. I picked on a word but since then you have clarified your position on how you used that word. Secondly this is a forum and we are here to debate so don't take anything personally...
And from where im standing it looks as if your tying knots on yourself to get around what the Quran says about justified killing. But that hardly makes me a nazi, or ??
First of all Noah, I don't take Quran as the whole truth or absolute truth. In fact I don't take any scripture to be the whole truth or absolute truth. I use my God-given reason. I don't make SCRIPTURE my REASON. And no, it does not make a nazi and I did not say you were, you have clarified your position...
Regards,
-
How about the others, anyone willing to offer their judgement? Noah? Saladin? Sis Marie? anyone?
The cases are
-
A person who puts down a terminally ill/injured person (euthanasia/mercy killing)
-
A person who kills in self defense
-
A person who bombed a crowded place, killing many people
-
A person whose orders result in a lot of killing (ie. a leader who orders an invasion to another country/people)
5a. A serial killer (without mental problems--kills intentionally)
5b. A serial killer (with mental problems--kills unintentionally)
- A person killing someone who oppresses him/her
If you are a judge, whom among those people will receive a death penalty?
salam Andya and all .
-
my opinion is that one should not kill a seriously ill or injured person . like in verse 1731 God commands not to kill our children for fear of want . God is able to do the impossible . he can give health to that injured person .
-
i would put no blame on him. he should not be punished in anyway .
-
should be killed.
-
should be killed.
5a. should be killed.
5b. should be sent for rehabilitation .
- should not be blamed . he should be free .
salam.
-
-
First of all Noah, I don't take Quran as the whole truth or absolute truth. In fact I don't take any scripture to be the whole truth or absolute truth.
salam Lotetree.
which part of the koran do u consider to be true("A TRUTH") ?
i have asked u this question before too , but u didnt reply . -
Hello LoteTree,
The question was is human life SACRED. The answer it seems to be a resounding YES. Then SOCIETY as whole should either uphold this principle or it should not.
Human life is sacred by default. This sanctity can be lost.
David, David we have been discussing free willed human life here as opposed to bacterial cells that happened to infect your bath-tub or your armpit! If you can show that bacteria are conscious free willed spiritual organisms and thinks about transcendent God and then hey yes you can say use of antibiotics on them is wrong!
I was responding to Elena.
Perhaps David you should contemplate and reflect on the nature of free willed human LIFE, perhaps you could see the sanctity of human existence...
Perhaps Lotetree, you should reflect on God's words, perhaps you would see that it is a mercy and a guidance.
A couple questions for you
Would you kill in self-defense?
Do you believe in an afterlife?peace
-
First of all Noah, I don't take Quran as the whole truth or absolute truth. In fact I don't take any scripture to be the whole truth or absolute truth.
salam Lotetree.
which part of the koran do u consider to be true("A TRUTH") ?
i have asked u this question before too , but u didnt reply .As I have said before - All religions assert that God is beyond Reason and Language. So how do you describe with words something that is beyond language and reason? How do you describe the truth of colour to someone who is born blind? or truth of music to someone who is born deaf? You can't, not with words. They have to experience this truth for themselves to "know" that it exists. Some truths, have to be experienced and can't be described with words. The Truth of Divinity is one of them. But this has not stopped human beings in trying to describe this ineffable experience with words. Scriptures therefore, are the attempts to describe this ineffable experience of God in human language. Therefore scripture is an "interpretation" of a reality that is beyond words and reason. And there is no "this bit is true" and "this bit is false", all of it is an "interpretation" in human language. And the language of the scripture is that of the 6th Arabia, the Morality of the scripture is the morality of the 6th century Arabia. That is why you get "spoils of war" being distributed amongst the victors. That is why the victims of war becomes your "Right Hand" possesion that can be made into slaves and concubines. This kind of Morality is unacceptable in this century.
You may disagree with this and that is ok, I don't mind because scripture is not important to me. Only thing that matters is understanding God. And I am applying my God-given reason, intutions and imaginations in this endevour.
But if you want to understand the nature of "A TRUTH" then I urge you to study and practice meditation then you might grasp something of the wordless reality that is God...
Regards,
-
Peace LoteTree,
I would like to remind you that at this very moment in time, you can find people living in "prehistoric age", "stone age"..."medieval age".... until "modern age or information age".
So basically, if you consider humanity as a group, you'll need a set of laws that can deal with all this spectrum independantely of the developpement factor, since humans are the same at any and every level.
And even in the same society, you can find this same spectrum in its mosaic of people, from less to more developped.
--
-
Perhaps Lotetree, you should reflect on God's words, perhaps you would see that it is a mercy and a guidance.
I have David. That is why Scripture is A GUIDE to me. God is not the SCRIPTURE. Scripture is a GUIDE to God. But you can argue with me that this is a better guide...
A couple questions for you
Would you kill in self-defense?
Do you believe in an afterlife?The question was should we kill the murderer. I said no and I have given my reasons for it. This about punishment. Death Penalty being the final punishement. But the broader implication to this question is should society practice Death Penalty. I said No again and I have given my reasons for it.
Now you are asking me should I kill in self-defense? There is a biological urge for self-preservation. This is different from wanting to kill the murderer as a pracitice by society that you live in.
Do I believe in an after-life? I don't accept literal description of after-life in the scripture. I would like to see descriptions of after life in a symbolic and metaphoric sense. Dancing around rivers of Wine and Honey in paradise as recounted in the scripture doesn't appeal to me...
Regards,
-
Peace LoteTree,
That is why Scripture is A GUIDE to me
I don't think it is "a guide" to you, at least not all of it. Based on your position, I think it would be more accurate for you to state "some of Scriputre is a guide to me".
When I asked
So any killing is wrong to you.
You stated
The question was is human life SACRED. The answer it seems to be a resounding YES. Then SOCIETY as whole should either uphold this principle or it should not.
So I asked
Would you kill in self-defense?
and now you state
The question was should we kill the murderer. I said no and I have given my reasons for it. This about punishment. Death Penalty being the final punishement. But the broader implication to this question is should society practice Death Penalty. I said No again and I have given my reasons for it.
Your premise is that the death penalty should not be applied because all human life is sacred. Thus my question about self-defense is perfectly valid. In fact, any scenario I bring forth which involves the killing of another person is valid given your premise.
Now you are asking me should I kill in self-defense? There is a biological urge for self-preservation. This is different from wanting to kill the murderer as a pracitice by society that you live in.
Biological urge? I hope you are not saying that we base morality on biological urges? As I?m sure you are aware, many mystical writings try hard to separate the soul from the body through asceticism.
So my question still stands, ?Would you kill in self-defense??
(I'm sure you can see where this is leading)peace