@Froski, though I favor the death penalty in principle, it has two big problems: 1) the length of time between the commission of the offense and being put to death is generally over 20 years, thus eliminating any deterrent effect, and 2) the cost of prosecuting and the appeals for a death penalty case is WAY more expensive than life imprisonment.

Yeah. Basically, my disagreement usually is a moral/religious reason. As ACB put in a 1998 Law Review Article, from a Catholic standpoint, all life is sacred, since we are all made within the eyes of god. She then set up two categories: abortion/euthanasia & war/death penalty. Abortion and Euthanasia are wrong because you are taking an innocent life. However, when differentiating that category from the other, it was the concept of taking an innocent life versus stopping harm to victims. War stops harm to a victim, while the death penalty doesn't really have much purpose then putting someone to death to avoid further crime. The Catholic standpoint allows life sentences, since it is the same sort of punishment without the murder aspect. The issue I have is from a tax payer perspective. If tax payers are paying for someone to live in prison for the rest of their lives, is it a financially sound decision. It's like paying for a Netflix subscription you never use. Froshe's argument against that tends to be a repentance focus. That someone can still repent for their sins in that time of a life punishment, unlike a death penalty.

Economically, the life imprisonment makes much more sense.

Sounds like the Catholic perspective has morphed into its own thing as separate from the Bible which is very specific of eye for eye, tooth for tooth, that any murderer is to be put to death, no question. The Catholic perspective as you pose it therefore is unstable and subject to the whims of whoever approaches it.

> Sounds like the Catholic perspective has morphed into its own thing as separate from the Bible which is very specific of eye for eye, tooth for tooth, that any murderer is to be put to death, no question. The Catholic perspective as you pose it therefore is unstable and subject to the whims of whoever approaches it.
@DannyNC1 That is old testament viewpoint. The new testament viewpoint is much different and actually counters that.

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.

“You have been heard that it was said ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on [your] right check, turn the other one to him as well.” Matthew 5:38-39

“But to you who hear I say, love your enemies do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you have them do to you. 32For if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same.” Luke 6:27-33

“But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them ‘Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” John 8:7

“Repay no one evil for evil. Have[a] regard for good things in the sight of all men. 18If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. 19Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord” Romans 12:17-19

“For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it, 4for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.” Romans 13:3-4

Yes, but, the Catholics do a whole lot of things in disregard to the New Testament in favor of the Old Testament. There is no office of a priest in the New Testament. Every believer in Christ instead is a priest, having access directly to God. The Catholics on the principle of the Old Testament set up a priesthood like the Jews had so they would have their own system. There is a point to say they are not totally OT, but neither are they totally NT. They are a mix, a hybrid, which is what the big problem is. Like I said, unstable.

And, Catholics have by far not followed the verses that you bring out there. In the Middle Ages they are still guilty for killing 50 million people in the Inquisition. That is absolutely abhorrent.

Did you read the distinctions made by ACB in my original point? War vs. Death Penalty

It is not at all following the New Testament to go kill sectarians/heretics, but that's what they did, and they are guilty for it. They did the same in Croatia in World War II.

I read your statement there but couldn't see where her argument stopped and where yours might have begun.

@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