If you punish rapists with death, why would they ever leave a victim alive?
The most idiotic of all cliches, yet almost never challenged.
Almost every law we pass is intended to legislate morality, since all "morality" means is the difference between right and wrong.
Why have we made murder, rape and kidnapping illegal? Because they're wrong, which is to say immoral.
We've even gotten around in recent years to criminalizing certain actions more severely depending on the perp's presumed motivation, the famous "hate crimes." Why? Because we believe such crimes to be uniquely wrong = immoral.
In fact, the whole PC and multi-culti movement is based on proclaiming certain actions to be wrong or immoral, even if they can't at present get them made illegal.
What those who use this cliche really mean is that, "We can't legislate sexual morality." I wish they'd just say so.
I also wish someone would explain why sexual morality is so uniquely invulnerable to legislation when a great many other personal and private actions are fully open, in their minds, to being legislated.
I absolutely and utterly disagree with this author.
Capital punishment shouldn’t be allowed based on someone testimony. All it takes is for one woman to sleep with a guy and cry rape and he’s DEAD?
Nope. And nope.
The constant push for ever-increasing punishments for every level of crime is a very big mistake, and one that future generations will pay the price for.
As bad as any other crime may be, if the person doesn’t take the life of more than one person, or possibly just one person in a particularly heinous manner, capital punishment should not be on the table.
Not Mike’s best piece. He’s correct that executing a rapist makes much more sense than executing a child conceived through rape, but there are far too many other factors for him to make as much of it as he’s doing.
Fortunately, this is just an opinion column, and his ideas won’t go further than talk.
Taking guilty life vs. taking innocent life. Could it be any more clear?
The same should be said about mass killings perpetrated by the obviously mentally ill.
I always turn the question back to my verbal opponent.
I ask why they are pro life for convicted murders, yet support the death penalty for innocent babies who have yet sinned and certainly have NOT committed a crime against others.
My thoughts on the Death Penalty-
No, putting someone to death does not bring their victims back to life or undo the evil they have committed. But I don’t think that is relevant at all to the subject. No one who supports the Death Penalty believes the person’s death will make everything alright. It is about Justice, not Vengeance. “Vengeance is Mine,” sayeth the Lord. Only God can exact vengeance upon a person’s soul. We can not.
But there is something we can do. We can say “With these actions you have forfeited your right to live amongst us and no length of incarceration will satisfy your debt. It is either too dangerous to allow you to live or your actions are so heinous that you no longer deserve to live out the remainder of your life.
And so, we cast you out of this world and send you on to the next. This will satisfy your debt to society but only God can decide upon your debt to Him. When you stand before Him, He will pass judgment upon you. May God have mercy on your everlasting soul.”
As to the Sixth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” I believe the KJV is a slight mistranslation. The correct translation would have been, “Thou shalt not murder,” where murder is the taking of innocent life. It is not murder to kill in legitimate self-defense, to kill in battle, or to kill the wicked.
I’ll never be comfortable with giving the government power over life and death.
Murder for convenience has always been against the law, that’s why unborn humans had to be re-labeled as “not humans”.
The folks that deny this might be surprised how God does not believe they didn’t know it was wrong to kill their unborn children for convenience, but I doubt it. They know it’s murder.