Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help Member List Member List FIGU-Website FIGU-Website
Search Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View FIGU-Shop FIGU-Shop

Archive through October 31, 2011

Discussionboard of FIGU » Books and Booklets Area » "Torture and the Death Penalty" » Archive through October 31, 2011 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Isabellacoca
Member

Post Number: 39
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Thursday, April 06, 2006 - 09:34 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello good people of figu.org,
I immediately noticed upon coming up on this topic of torture and the penalty and realized that no one has posted anything. I guess somebody has to be first. In saying this, here's what I have to say thus far.
One of my favorite authors is John Grisham, a legal thriller writer. One of his books, now a major motion picture with Gene Hackman and Chris O'donnell, called 'The Chamber', is a great book to read about one of the many uses of the death penalty--the gas chamber. It would be a start for those who don't know much about the gas chamber and the death penalty and how the 'victims' lawyer suffer also, etc.

In the world today, one of the hottest topics you'll most likely find besides abortion and religion is capital punishment or death penalty. There are those who believe in an 'eye for an eye', and there are those who feel that the 'eye for an eye' is too cruel and immoral.
There are those who feel that it is not up to the government to decide who dies, but up to god, and the other half feel the opposite.


My opinion? I'm against the death penalty b/c most of the time, especially when it comes to african americans, they're convicted unfairly and a lot of the innocent die. Even white people get the death penalty and they turn out to be innocent. It is almost guaranteed that black people will get an unfair trial, and the 8th amendment will not be considered at all in their trial verdict. Also, i'm against the death penalty b/c the killer sometimes will never do it again b/c when they did do the killing it was an act of past childhood experience and therefore, should be placed in a mental hospital instead of killing them.


However, I'm also for the death penalty if we're talking about a cold-blooded serial killer who don't give a sh*t about anyone's life and will do it again to make society scared of him/her. And in these kind of horrible situations, jail and rehabs/mental hospitals are not good enough and will make it easier for that person to haunt society again, making the environment unsafe for children especially.
Salome and love to all,
Isabella Coca
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Norm
Member

Post Number: 781
Registered: 02-2000
Posted on Thursday, April 06, 2006 - 06:43 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"It is almost
guaranteed that black people will get an unfair trial, and the 8th
amendment will not be considered at all in their trial verdict. "

Did O.J. get a fair trial?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Hunter
Member

Post Number: 213
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Saturday, April 08, 2006 - 07:31 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Here's a group we could all support:

National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty
http://www.ncadp.org
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Junior
Member

Post Number: 71
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Saturday, April 08, 2006 - 11:24 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hey issie and others,

For some reason I thought this section is regards to the booklet regarding death penalty, but anyway I thought to share something that some of you might find disturbing but its worth knowing. So I guess here is a good place for the post.

Can you imagine where I live (Saudi Arabia) public death penalty is still existing and practiced, in fact its done every Friday, which is equal to a Christian Sunday, for Muslims. Specifically speaking of beheading, obviously there is a lot of blood involved and at times even pain if it wasn’t done correctly. But the really disturbing thing is that there are always innocent people, for example, I remember an account that there was a woman that had a death penalty and only at the point of the actual beheading they found out when saying out the name of the person that it was the wrong name on record!! So you can imagine how messed up things can get…

But their main reason is to generate fear within people not to do wrong things, if you wonder what action one would be punished with, it’s the usual murder, selling drugs, writing something negative about the prophet Mohammed, Koran or Islam, etc. They would usually have a penalty of beheading, by the way even the king can by law order someone to be beheaded, but it doesn't happen that often, and it would have to be a very serious act, and the order would bypass the courts.

You can imagine this place is like a 100 years back in time if not more with their thoughts and actions compared to the west, technologically they are considered up to date.
Peace to all, and one Love
Junior
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Sonik_01
Member

Post Number: 24
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Monday, April 10, 2006 - 10:30 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Isabella,

The cold-blooded serial killer who doesn't give a sh*t about anyone's life are especially the ones that shouldn't be killed because their tendancy towards killing and destroying lives is especially strong! If you kill them and they haven't learned their lessons, they are the most likely to develop the tendancy in the next life and continue on killing without regard to others. These people, I believe, should be harshly punished, ie- manual labour all day long in the hot sun and being locked up in a small cell until they understand their lesson. If they still don't understand their lesson at the time of natural death then at least the tendancy towards killing might be reduced because they will understand that their life long suffering is due to their own actions, at least to some degree. Besides that, if you kill them, what makes you able to say then that you are any better than they if you are guilty of commiting the same crime as they are guilty of? That is the reason why the death penalty should not be used as an excuse to carry out barbarous atrocities against humanity, much in the same way that the military does!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Memo00
Member

Post Number: 221
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 06:45 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

hi Sonik

Billy has explained that such tendency to kill doesn´t exist (and here i apologize because i have written that wrong info in the past)

something more accurate to say is that: if a person doesn´t learns the lesson, then he/she could commit the same mistakes again, but that doesn´t makes him/her a killing machine or anything

the factors that convert an innocent baby into an assassin are related with the enviroment in which he/she grows, im sure that if a baby who was a murderer in past (and was executed), was born in Erra (the planet of the Plejaren) then probably he/she would not kill anyone, not only because of the love, but because they would pay A LOT of attention to his/her education, and would notice any mental disorder and would correct it, (and obviously there he/she would never see violent TV shows etc that could trigger unconscious impulses)

also one of the main reasons of why people are so confused and make a lot of foolish decisions, is overpopulation which causes us to reincarnate a lot sooner than we should. . .

take care
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Sonik_01
Member

Post Number: 25
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 01:34 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks for the info. I didn't realize it was like this. So that is to say that if someone killed someone in a past life and learned their lesson also in the past that they wouldn't do it again? What would happen in this situation? I suppose that given the circumstances they might do it again if they are born into an abusive or neglectful environment that is destructive and not conducive to learning. Is that a correct supposition?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Isabellacoca
Member

Post Number: 45
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 12:47 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Norm,
I honestly don't know how to answer that question because it will take a lot of research and reading of OJ Simpson's trial life and there's a lot to read. But if somebody asked you that question, would you say he had a fair trial or not?


WHY MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE O. J. SIMPSON DID NOT GET A FAIR CIVIL TRIAL
1. We believe that based on the evidence presented to the juries in both trials, both verdicts were correct.
2. Some civil trial jurors said during voir dire they believed O. J. Simpson was guilty; the judge failed to assure an impartial jury.
3. The judge excluded much defense evidence at the request of the plaintiffs.
4. To repeat the above another way, the jurors were not presented with the entire body of evidence which the criminal jury received, and which convinced them there was indeed reasonable doubt about the state's case.
5. The defense was not allowed to admit evidence which showed the dangerous lifestyle Nicole Brown Simpson was living which would have supported possible alternate theories for her murder. (Such defense evidence about either Nicole or Ron Goldman's personal life was considered to be in "poor taste" by the media.)
6. The jurors apparently dismissed much of the evidence which was presented to them by the defense.
7. The jurors admittedly speculated on a number of details in order to arrive at their verdict. (The law does not allow jurors to speculate about anything).
8. Several of the plaintiff's key witnesses changed their testimony from the criminal trial to the civil trial, and in a material (significant) adverse effect against O. J. Simpson.
9. Since the burden of proof in a civil trial ("more likely than not") is lesser than that in a criminal case ("beyond a reasonable doubt"), these factors guaranteed O. J. Simpson did not have a chance to win the civil case. We believe this was in effect a violation of his civil rights. Our purpose here is to demonstrate the final item listed above.


I'll post some more, not neciserrily this, later on.
Salome and love to all,
Isabella Coca
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Isabellacoca
Member

Post Number: 46
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 12:53 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Utilitarian Arguments Concerning Capital Punishment

Perhaps the most common defenses of capital punishment are on utilitarian grounds. For utilitarians, punishment in general is justified only insofar as it creates a greater balance of happiness vs. unhappiness. From the utilitarian perspective, then, capital punishment is justified if it (1) prevents the criminal from repeating his crime; or (2) deters crime by discouraging would-be offenders. For, both of these contribute to a greater balance of happiness in society. There are several immediate problems with this line of reasoning. First, the burden of proof is on the defender of capital punishment to show that the same effects could not be accomplished with less severe punishment, such as life imprisonment. This is especially pertinent since the goal of utilitarianism is to reduce as much unhappiness as possible and this entails imposing the least severe of two possible punishments when everything else is equal. Italian political theorist Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794) argues this point in On Crimes and Punishment (1764), one of the first systematic critiques of capital punishment from the utilitarian point of view. According to Beccaria, capital punishment is not necessary to deter, and long term imprisonment is a more powerful deterrent since execution is transient.

A second and more basic problem with utilitarian defenses of capital punishment involves the fact gathering process. Since the utilitarian is making a factual claim about the beneficial social consequences of capital punishment, then his claim should be backed by empirical evidence. In the absence of such reliable empirical evidence, the utilitarian position must be dismissed, as is the case with any unverified factual claim. "Empirical evidence" in general is of two varieties: anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence. Anecdotal evidence involves isolated observations which appear to correlate two states of affairs, which, in this case, would be (a) capital punishment, and (b) improved social conditions. Given the gravity of the issue at stake with capital punishment, namely, people's lives, anecdotal evidence is an insufficient ground for establishing a causal connection between capital punishment and improved social conditions. Instead, scientific studies are needed. Several studies have been conducted in the past few decades regarding such a connection, but, unfortunately, the methodology used on social questions of this nature is necessarily imprecise. Ideally, a truly scientific study of the question would involve a comparison between two otherwise identical societies in which capital punishment was not used in the control group but was used in the test group. The problem, though, is that it is a practical impossibility to isolate two otherwise identical societies upon which to conduct the study. An almost endless variety of differing factors in the respective groups will make the results inconclusive. Not surprisingly, the recently conducted empirical studies in fact draw conflicting conclusions. This basic problem in the fact gathering process not only applies to the utilitarian defender of capital punishment, but also to the utilitarian critic of capital punishment who might, for example, argue that society benefits more from life imprisonment sentences.

A third problem with utilitarian justifications of punishment, as pointed out by contemporary political philosopher Adam Bedeau, concerns the ratio of innocent lives saved per execution. Perhaps, in the best possible situation, executing five of the most dangerous convicts will result in saving five innocent lives in the future. As the number of executions increases, however, the number of innocent lives saved will not increase proportionally. Eventually, it may take one thousand additional executions to save only one additional innocent life. So, eventually it must be determined how many executions justify the saving of one innocent life. This, though, is virtually impossible to determine, yet utilitarians need this information to successfully calculate the overall social benefit of capital punishment.

Finally, critics of capital punishment sometimes argue on utilitarian grounds that the expense involving executions is substantially greater than the cost of life imprisonment. The costs of appeals and legal counseling are the principal expenses. Thus, the extra financial burden of capital punishment contributes to a greater balance of unhappiness vs. happiness. There are three problems with this argument. First, such financial calculations typically do not take into account that much of the legal counseling for death row inmates is pro bono which does not cost the taxpayer. Second, even if this is a true description of the cost of capital punishment in the United States and other developed countries, it is not representative of the cost of criminal executions world wide. Indeed, one might reasonably expect that in many developing countries executions are substantially cheaper than life imprisonment costs. Assuming that critics of capital punishment object to its practice in any country, this argument not only lacks universal application, but might in fact be used as an argument in favor of capital punishment in countries with less expensive appeals processes. Finally, even if executing criminals is more costly than life imprisonment, it is not immediately obvious that the extra expense either contributes to a greater balance of social unhappiness or even tips the balance towards unhappiness. Society may actually be pleased with, or at least content with, the value it is getting for its capital punishment dollar.


Retributive Arguments Concerning Capital Punishment


The retributive notion of punishment in general is that (a) as a foundational matter of justice, criminals deserve punishment, and (b) punishment should be equal to the harm done. In determining what counts as "punishment equal to harm," theorists further distinguish between two types of retributive punishment. First, lex talionis retribution involves punishment in kind and is commonly expressed in the expression "an eye for an eye." Second, lex salica retribution involves punishment through compensation, and the harm inflicted can be repaired by payment or atonement. Historically, capital punishment is most often associated lex talionis retribution. One of the most early written statements of capital punishment from the lex talionis or "eye for an eye" perspective is from the 18th century BCE Babylonian Law of Hammurabi:

If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death. If it kills the son of the owner, then the son of that builder shall be put to death.
Critics of classic lex talionis-oriented capital punishment point out several problems with this view. First, as a practical matter, lex talionis retribution cannot be uniformly applied to every harm committed. The second sentence in the above quote from the Law of Hammurabi shows the inherent absurdity of consistent application: "If it [i.e., a collapsed house] kills the son of the owner, then the son of the builder shall be put to death." Second, as a strict formula of retribution, lex talionis punishment may even be inadequate. For example, if a terrorist or mass murderer kills ten people, then taking his single life is technically not punishment in kind. Third, foundational beliefs in general have the unfortunate consequence of appearing arbitrary. If a belief in lex talionis retribution is foundational, then, by definition, it cannot be defended by appealing to a prior set of reasons. The arbitrary nature of this is particularly clear when we see that there is an alternative retributive view of punishment which is equally foundational, yet which does not require capital punishment, namely lex salica retribution. Finally, critics of capital punishment argue that the true basis of retributive justifications of capital punishment is not at all foundational, but instead rooted in psychological feelings of vengeance. Even if we grant that vengeance is a natural human emotion, critics argue that it is an impulse which should be tempered, just as we do natural feelings of fear, lust, and greed. Laws about punishment, then, should not be grounded in our extreme feelings, but should instead be based on our more tempered ones. When we moderate our natural feelings of vengeance, there should be little inclination to execute criminals.
Immanual Kant offered an alternative retributive justification of capital punishment which is not rooted in vengeance. Instead, for Kant, capital punishment is based on the idea that every person is a valuable and worthy of respect because of their ability to make rational and free choices. The murder, too, is worthy of respect; we, thus, show him respect by treating him the same way he declares that people are to be treated. Accordingly, we execute the murderer. A key problem with Kant's justification of capital punishment is that it tells us what to do with only ideally rational killers, although many killers are not rational.



Other Arguments for Capital Punishment


Some standard arguments for capital punishment do not fall neatly into either the retributive or utilitarian categories. For example, John Locke's famous defense of capital punishment has both a retributive and utilitarian component. Locke argued that a person forfeits his rights when committing even minor crimes. Once rights are forfeited, Locke justifies punishment for two reasons: (1) from the retributive side, criminals deserve punishment, and, (2) from the utilitarian side, punishment is needed to protect our society by deterring crime through example. Thus, society may punish the criminal any way it deems necessary so to set an example for other would-be criminals. This includes taking away his life. Under the influence of Locke's theory of the forfeiture of rights, English law had some 200 capital offenses by 1800. Critics of Locke argue that there are alternatives to his assumption that criminals forfeit their right to life. It may be, instead, that criminals forfeit other rights (such as freedom to travel), yet the right to life is simply not forfeitable. Beccaria, for example, argued that people did not sacrifice their rights to life when entering into the social contract.

Another defense of capital punishment is based on an analogy that capital punishment is to the political body just as self-defense is to the individual. The reasoning is that, in dangerous circumstances, the individual is justified in protecting himself by self-defense with deadly force. Since society (or the political body) is like a large person, society, too, is justified in using deadly force through capital punishment. However, for this analogy to be a successful, it must parallel the accepted principle that self-defense with deadly force is justified only when there is no alternative open to us (such as fleeing). This means we must see whether any alternative to capital punishment is open (such as long term imprisonment). Further, the self-defense with deadly force is grounded in the moral right of self-preservation. However, only people, properly speaking, have moral rights; abstract entities and institutions such as governing bodies do not. Consequently, the analogy between capital punishment and self-defense fails it a basic level.



Direct Attacks on Capital Punishment


As noted, most arguments against capital punishment are based on exposing flaws in defenses of capital punishment. However, some are more direct attacks, such as that capital punishment should be abolished since it is undignified, inhumane, or contrary to love. Corporal punishment, such as flogging, and extreme types of capital punishment, such as burning at the stake, are no longer accepted practices because of their indignity. By parity of reasoning, capital punishment should be abolished too. However, even if we grant that capital punishment violates our duty to treat people with dignity, humanity, and love, that alone may not be a sufficient reason for abolishing the practice. Dignity, humanity and love are foundational moral goods and as such are prima facie in nature. That is, they are each morally binding on face value until a stronger duty emerges with which it conflicts, thereby creating a moral dilemma. Defenders of capital punishment argue that retributive justice is one such conflicting duty. For, even though we are duty bound to acknowledge a criminal's dignity, the duty of retribution is also present and is in fact outweighs the other duties.

A second direct attack on the practice of capital punishment is that, at least at present, it is virtually impossible to apply death sentences fairly. People on death row are typically poor and thus could not afford the best defense at their initial trial. They are also predominately Afro-American or Hispanic which raises larger issues of racial inequality in the US. As ethnic minorities, they are also likely to receive more strict judgments from juries than their white counterparts who commit the same crime. These considerations recently prompted a US Supreme Court Justice to change his own views on capital punishment and reject the practice. In addition to problems of class bias, the practice of capital punishment is further tainted by the tragic fact that innocent people are sometimes executed. Eliminating capital punishment not only prevents their wrongful execution, but gives them more time to to clear their names and return to society.
Salome and love to all,
Isabella Coca
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Memo00
Member

Post Number: 223
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 07:25 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

hi again Sonik

it would be up to the person, ´cause everyone is different and each one must make his own decisions etc, i think that it is simply much more difficult because he/she would receive impulses from what he/she has learned, but not impossible (at least he/she would recognize his/her errors sooner)

without this impulses we would make the same mistakes over and over and evolution would be impossible

take care
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Sonik_01
Member

Post Number: 26
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 06:19 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Isabella,

My dear girl, I just wanna give you a heads up concerning "philosophy" and "philosophy teachers". Classical philosophy and the study of virtue is quite all right, but keep in mind that all this talk concerning "libertarians", and "utilitarians", and "rationalists" and even "radicals" and all this other nonsense is just that - nonsense. It is designed to confuse you and does not lead to real wisdom. I speak here not because I'm touting and advertising figu, but i learned this the hard way, through experience - by ending up in a mental institute, independantly of figu. I learned this incredibly hard lesson long before I had ever heard of figu or had any ideas about ufology. And also, just so you don't say that it's only me, I have observed this phenomena working within other people as I notice how it is working now within you. This so-called "philosophy" is a system of dogmas designed to confuse you. It fabricates certain definitions and induces you to accept them as real, when in fact all they are is imaginary. All the definitions and dogmas of this "philosophy" are truly regrettable because I loved this subject and was seduced into thinking it would bring meaning into my life, and happiness. It is synthetic only and has no real bearing on life. It is regrettable that the youth of today are subjected to such entire loads of nonsense, or bulls**t designed to confuse them. Nobody "attacks" capital punishment or any other opinion. An "attack" is an irrational action, not based on logic. Please try not to get pulled into an argument with these teachers because their brains are filled with such complete nonsense, and such a lack of common sense that they will confuse you all the more. They are aware that they really don't know anyhting and their purpose is to confuse you in the incorrect assumption that this leads to true "knowledge". Nothing could be farther from the truth. Confusion leads to confusion, and confusion is what it is - confusion. Please don't get pulled into an argument with these "teachers" or any other of your classmates, and try to keep your distance from such material. Simply take in the material, don't get altered by it, just view it for what it is - crap - get your grade and move on. Forget about it! It has nothing to do with the truth. Simply try to keep your distance in this classroom and try to excel in your other courses to make up for your deficiencey in this class. Believe me, the more you get deeper into this, the more you will suffer for it. You will suffer confusion and you will probably get into great pain, and if you insist forcefully to get answers from these fools like I did, you will end up in a mental institution. These "teachers" are nothing more than fools and know-it-alls who simply don't have even the most basic idea of how to live life in a righteous manner. They are corrupt and have the spiritual intelligence of a mosquito, or even less, because a mosquito does it's natural duty and serves Creation. These people do not. So, in short, I hope I haven't scared you, but please take my advice into consideration. Your psyche will thank you later.

Please take care of yourself,

Sonik.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Isabellacoca
Member

Post Number: 48
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 10:57 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sonik_01,

Wow. It's incredible, all of what you said, yes. To tell you the truth I didn't read what I posted at all, I thought it would be interesting to read for both sides of the death penalty to read, but I guess I got careless because I hate reading boring stuff. Only the titles of each topic got my attention, but I have read your response well and i take it well. I am only 18 and i have much to learn about hot topics throughout the world that brings about much pain and conflict such as the death penalty, euphanesia, abortion, religion, etc. I greatly apreciated that you didn't spit at me because I have seen some people of this forum get spit at because of some careless post, etc, but i'm only a youth filled with life and i will think twice b4 i post no matter what the topic.

on a side note, i do know this, no matter what a person does in killing people and such, the death penalty is not going to solve anything(the same thing people say about war, those against war that war does not solve anything). it will be another dead body added to the grave. victims' family does not feel any happier because killing the murderer does not bring back their loved one.

Thanks once again Sonik.
PS: I have a nickname for you. it's : Sonic. you know, that cartoon guy.
Salome and love to all,
Isabella Coca
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Sonik_01
Member

Post Number: 27
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 04:14 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thank you Isabella for the nickname.

Please take care of yourself in these classrooms! Everything in the class room is an unprovable dogma. They are just based on what someone else believed or said in the past, or what most people in the general population believe or say. None of it is proveable at all.

I know some people who know all that philosophical nonsense inside and out and they are still to me considered to be one of the most ignorant, illogical and love-less and useless people around. They are trapped in a system of beliefs that doesn't allow them to know the truth.

On the other hand, I know people and have seen people who have no idea about these sorts of things and are extremely wise. They make good decisions in life and have incredible amounts of love in their hearts, and always have good advice and a kind word to give and are always loving and helpful. Believe me, you don't need to know that stuff to be wise, and you can learn wisdom from anywhere, not just those retarded philosophy books.
I'm not saying that sometimes they don't touch on good points, but it's the same story like in the bible - too much nonsense, illogicalness, stupidity and outright lies thrown in to the point where it becomes a useless mash of crap =].

The stuff in school sometimes is not really all it's cracked up to be, unfortunately and doesn't help you in life at all. Please don't be misled by artificial dogmas, because that's all they are. Thet are based on beliefs only. Take them for what they are worth in order to pass the class and be aware of what they are. Sorry to sound like a broken tape recorder here....

Saalome, and take care.

Sonik
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Stephen_moore
Member

Post Number: 29
Registered: 01-2009
Posted on Saturday, February 14, 2009 - 06:06 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi all

Is killing a Human because he/she killed a Human right?

If we take the Commandment no.6. You shall not kill in depravity.

If someone killed a person in depravity then that is wrong. 100% unless acting in self defence. But if not acting in self defence then does it make it right for another Human to kill that Human as in death penalty.

Does anyone of us on Earth have the right to take another persons life because they took someone elses life? Is that murder too? After all the person carrying out the death penalty is not acting in self defence he/she is just following orders.

I think a real survey and a study on what I have said on here should be carried out and published in a book so we can find out what truly people think when they are faced with these questions because it has always been my top question in regard to the death penalty.

Thanks
Asket: - The Creation is the basic foundation of life and all existence. In the force of The Creation, we fulfill our mission, which is not only of cosmic, but all-universal importance, because The Creation IS the life, and The Creation IS the existence
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Scott
Moderator

Post Number: 1697
Registered: 12-1999
Posted on Saturday, February 14, 2009 - 10:13 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Stephen,

Killing is only justified when it is an act of self defense. When a person is put to death as in the death penalty, it is a form of pre-meditated murder. When a person is "killed" by society, this does not allow the person to learn from their mistakes. Of course this does not guarantee the person will learn, but it surely gives him/her time to think about it. These are the teaching as I understand them. In addition, I think the word "Commandment" is being changed to "Recommendation".

Regards
Scott
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Edward
Member

Post Number: 1313
Registered: 05-2002
Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 06:06 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Stephen....


Of course, NO ONE has the right to kill another human being, in Revenge or
similar like actions. It does not bring back the one that is killed, not? And
if One would obtain some Satisfaction here from, than One is truly Confused;
in all ways.

Thus, it is just very illogical and not within the framework of The Creation.

It could only be in the framework of some Cult Religion of some sort; which
are mostly keeping themselves within their False indoctrination concepts, of:
"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth....."; and what else have we?

Which is not within the Creational Teachings.

Even if the one following orders, let say, in this case, One will be shot by a
Firing Squad, those men also have to take the 'responsibility' in the
actions of their 'JOB'! For get not; they too, are being Paid for KILLING in
their job, and thus, in a way....they are just: Hired Killers! The same would
be like-wise with any such individual, whom executes such job/work.

I think, Billy mentioned something similar to what I mentioned, above, once.

So, it is best for them to acquire a proper and healthy job that is worth
living for; and worked hard for the(ir) salary, and not be a Paid
Killer/Executioner.


Edward.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Schantz
Member

Post Number: 21
Registered: 03-2007
Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 09:40 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Stephen,

If you have not read this booklet here's how you can order it.

http://us.figu.org/portal/tabid/88/CategoryID/2/ProductID/12/PageIndex/3/Default.aspx
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Davidmg
Member

Post Number: 6
Registered: 03-2008
Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 04:54 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Unfortunately, here on Earth the majority medical/legal professionals lack the knowledge and patience to try and find out why some people do not have a "connection" with the Laws and Commandments of Creation. Something has happened in the offenders life that they no longer have that connection to the Laws and Commandments of Creation to be able to listen to that voice/feelings inside of them saying, "it is wrong to kill".

For the offender all attempts should be made to heal that persons' impairment in order to bring them back to a balanced life so he/she is not a threat to society. If all attempts are hindered, then that person must be 1) isolated from those who will be affected from his/her negative impact. 2) Not allowed to procreate. 3) Community Service must be performed if he/she has caused damage to property. But, sadly, through stupid litigation and financial exploitation this often fails. In the final moments before death it is very damaging to the spirit to enter the beyond with such a violent transition.

We are too quick to sweep the dirt under the carpet.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Tjames
Member

Post Number: 280
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 10:35 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello Davidmg

Nice to meet you.

I couldn't help but notice a couple of your comments and mention
a few things regarding them. Firstly, I most definitely agree that in time
the teachings of Creation must be disseminated
to all parts of the planet INCLUDING but not limited to rehabilitation centers.
This would not only improve the quality but the speed of recovery
for those afflicted, offending individuals as well.
However, and importantly, it must be said that the true path to
recovery should include
"banishment" or in modern terms isolation, obviously without
procreation rights, but community service depending on crimes.
I think more serious crimes must be met with the most
serious and effective punishments, namely those of banishment
to get the individual working with nature, separated from all
technology, people and contact less regulatory influences. This
will ensure a healthy recovery and a proper and humane
way to handle these matters.

Third. For the sake of truth,
it should be said that even in the most horrific and gruesome deaths the
spirit isn't "damaged" even one iota. The human spirit cannot be
negatively affected in any way through material influences.
However, stagnation for the spirits evolution is of course the key
factor involved in a situation when someone is killed.

I read an article from BBC today talking about how inmates can be initiated
into programs which teach them CEO training techniques since they
are typically business minded, but I thought that
was a bit risky seeing that the re-offending rate was around 60%.
These are obviously for people who committed lesser crimes.

I just thought I'd add my few cents.

Salome
Tim
Salome gam nan been urda gan njber hasala hesporona!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Sarah
New member

Post Number: 2
Registered: 10-2011
Posted on Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 05:48 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I had some vengeful thoughts in the past myself. But I turned it around for myself and thought, if I killed a person, or do something simply because someone else did it to me, how is that teaching them that action is wrong?

Lets spin it another way. Letting them live may not assure they will learn, but killing them is denying them a chance to learn.

I often say to my friend tommy, who is a proponent of capital punishment "You say that criminals will never learn, and then its the states duty to kill them. But how are you not pre judging them? Assuming every criminal wont learn." Instead he's simply not giving them the chance to learn.

A person isnt going to learn something, if their lopped off before you can teach them.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Edward
Member

Post Number: 2258
Registered: 05-2002
Posted on Sunday, October 30, 2011 - 04:08 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Sarah....

Good summery!

We must take heed, that a criminal individual can be 'ill' in mind, which is
very hard for such individual to comprehend LIFE, as it is.

Billy even, mentioned such individuals, which should not be put to death.

Someone that is ill in mind, you just do not kill. You try and remedy such
individual...help him/her out. LEARN such individuals to gain Insight to the
matter or whatever the case may be. Thus, a Psychological Evaluation should be
quite relevant, here. And than, draw whatever conclusions they can come up
with.

Someone that is ill in mind, should be healed from his/her illness and not put
to death.

A criminal that is Intentionally committing a violent crime is something else.

Not saying he/she should be put to death per se, but, close evaluation should
be processed, here.

The best would still be to Ban such individuals as was conducted from ancient
times, just as our Earth was once a Prison planet. All technology, etc., is
withheld from these individuals and they live their lives with just the
needed, enough to survive till their death.


Edward.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Justsayno
Member

Post Number: 408
Registered: 10-2009
Posted on Sunday, October 30, 2011 - 08:58 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Sarah, also think of all the people who have been put to death who are innocent. In my country in the last few years there have been about 10 who been exonerated due to DNA evident, now available that wasn't when they were incarcerated. But we don't have capital punishment here and last year we had the lowest murder rate since 1963. And abortions are free and legal, not sure if there is a connection there. To be able to forgive someone for making a mistake and not carrying a grudge (and not wanting to kill them), you are the better person.
When capital punishment is used, the spirit form may become incarnated shortly there after and the new personality will probably do the same thing again, because it did not learn in it's last lifetime. At least if they spend their lives in jail they have the chance to redeem themselves. So in effect by using capital punishment we are breeding a whole new generation of people who are bound to do really bad things.
Good, better, best. May you never rest, until your good is better, and your better best.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Rarena
Member

Post Number: 712
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Monday, October 31, 2011 - 08:00 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dear Justsayno,

First, let me say that accidents do happen, yet we still have to suffer the consequences of those accidents and hopefully learn and evolve because of them rather than being a defeatist about it... So there are some in prison that do not deserve it... that is correct. But there are some laws which are immutable and the opposite and equal reaction will occur no matter what we or anyone else attempts to do about it... because they are Universal laws... beyond those of this earth and it's barbaric system.

It is my understanding the human baby is not "alive" till twenty-one days after conception, terminating pregnancy anytime after that is considered murder by the Plejaren.

There are adjustments for rape but performing the sex act only for pleasure with the “blasé faire" attitude of not thinking nor regarding the eventual result... (I.E conceiving a baby) is unfair to the spirit-form entering the earth plane and we will have to balance that out somehow whether in this life or the next.

The death penalty is incorrect because the criminal whose life is cut short... does not have sufficient time to consider the pain inflicted upon the surviving family members and loved ones who suffer directly as a result of that crime. Only by staying in prison and suffering and actually thinking about or hearing about the anguish of those affected by the crime will that person who perpetrated the crime understand how wrong the crime was... so that person will have a deeper respect for others and learn from the mistake thus evolving from the consequential experience.

It is my understanding that we reincarnate with a rather "clean slate" as far as past actions are concerned... yet we still must evolve by learning from our mistakes or experience the same situation again and again until we do.

Since we must consider all as one... we have to know we are on the same path of continual evolution, some will take longer than others... Stick with the twelve recomendations and that path becomes a little more clear... allowing us to evolve to a higher state of consciousness to a point... someday.... where the concept of death is nonexistent. Sticking with these laws and recommendations corrects past mistakes and quickens your overall time to a better and higher plane of existence.

Salome

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page