@DannyNC1, the reason a death penalty is more expensive: lawyers

The work of lawyers is hardly a reason against death penalty. Anything can be overpriced, but that does not mean it should be done or not.

Her argument, which is what I am stating, is that war is allowable due to the aspect of deterring harm to others, whereas the death penalty does not act as a deterrence.

Well, she was absolutely wrong about the death penalty not acting as a deterrence. What kind of logic is that! The cities that allow their citizens to have guns have little to no breakins because the thieves know there will be a 'death penalty' from the citizenry that they are risking. That's a deterrence!! But, the gun free zones are magnets for crime because the criminals know they are easy scores. Capital punishment is certainly a deterrent. Imposing severe penalties deters crime--as proven by the President coming in and imposing a 10 year prison sentence this year if people topple statues. The statue destruction stopped immediately!

So, her argument is unfounded. I don't care how smart she is touted as being.

Biblically, what should be argued is that God ordained to all of mankind that there is to be a death penalty: Gen. 9:5-6, "And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. 6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." That was when Noah and his family got out of the ark, before they got settled and before all of ancient history happened after that, including long before the start of the Israelites. So, that was a charge to all mankind that there was to be a death penalty for murder. People have just got away from how God initially commanded mankind to do it, and that's why things get to becoming a mess.

And, Froski, most of what you cited from the Bible there in the NT is about Christians and their personal reaction to others, especially in regard to persecution. There is to be no vengeance taken by Christians on those that persecute them, even if it is physically violent what they receive from them. As for government, the NT does not set up a government because Christians have no business starting governments, just living exemplary lives as they can, as well as giving others the Gospel so they can be saved, and serving God.

Therefore, if we are to look to the Bible for precedent on the government and law, which has been done in America since the beginning up until recent history, the model is the OT. But, yet, it too is a mix, for there is a freedom of religion, which is a concept from the NT. So, that is why the government is based on Judeo-Christian values.

> As for economically, if I was a teacher reading your paper, I would urge you to find out why it is the case that it is more expensive as you say for the cost of prosecution. Sounds like people that are too compassionate have set up the rules on purpose to dissuade from capital punishment.
@DannyNC1 Or to prevent innocents from being killed at the hands of the state... And additionally, are you against separation of church and state?

@Froski regarding the Death Penalty:
Economically, it doesn't make sense, and some people know how to avoid the punishment. However, I do believe that the average person grows up fearing it and that has a good societal effect.

The only thing I think would make the death penalty more effective, and this is just a guess made based on standard psychology, would be public execution in some instances. Like a live stream or something. It would really teach people that it could happen to them if they don't follow the law. It sounds messed up, and it is, but it would have a better effect on crime

I think firing squad should be brought back but electrocution chair should not be a thing

@VirtualTools_ Your question has no connection to the statements you cited from me, though I suppose that was not the focus of your question but of your preliminary statement. I assume you think so from other things I've said here in this. To answer, no, absolutely not. I am in full favor of separation of church and state as initially set forth by the Constitutional framers and contemporaries. I have written on it, and I teach it and advocate it. As it was intended then, it is a Biblically Christian principle. However, it is not inherently a Catholic principle for they have been very intermixed with government through the centuries, even today--why would a church have ambassadors to governments and ambassadors of governments to them? They are acting like their own country, which is entirely foreign to the Bible. But, that is off topic since these are about polls here. If you want to discuss it more you can DM me.

@Rocci is he allowed to run again if he doesn't win?

in regards to the question is <#741520846484537404>

Yes.

damn I've been wondering for a long time and I never got a straight answer thank you!

The 8 year term does not have to be consecutive.

awesome thanks for the confirmation!

Now, there are some loopholes to get around the 8 year term limit, and some that I think need to be fixed. The biggest one was something people thought Biden would do, and that was make Obama the VP. Meaning that if something happened to Biden, Obama would get to be president again without it being illegal.

@ZSLiby Studios Are you sure that’s legal? I’m pretty sure that’s illegal because to be vice president you have to have every qualification of being president, and if your time is president has expired then I would think that you couldn’t be vice president

No, it's perfectly legal

Nope, it is illegal

lmao

22nd Admendment

VPs can be pres but pres can't be VP

bsically?

Hey, I can be wrong at times, right? At least I admitted I was wrong.

Yeah

already a better person than half of the world

What if Obama took Nancy pelosi's position then Biden and Kamala got Hillaryied? That would make Obama president again.

Obviously not going to happen but what would happen then.

Obama still couldn't be president again.

Both the 12th and 22nd Amendments say that nobody who has been president for 2 terms can be president again.

12th says that?

I'm pretty sure it was just a formality until FDR had 4 terms and made the 22nd ammendment

12 says something along those lines

12 outlines how they're elected

I don't think it includes term limits

otherwise FDR wouldn't have been able to have 4 terms right?

Maybe