Do bad people deserve second chances?

[Warbsywoo]

It's a simple question with complex consequences if actually carried out.
Do bad people deserve a second chance at life?
Say, a murderer or someone who pleads innocent.

Personally, I don't believe they should, basically because they did the wrong thing. Also, it would most likely not be safe enough to keep them out here if it could be helped, because in a likely scenario, he/she could kill or rape or abduct again.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[F. F. Fan]

I really depends on the severity of the crime in my opinion.

Convicted Murderers and Rapist of the sort, No.

Those who commit petty crimes though, Yes. Most of these crimes are committed by young people who (hopefully) eventually grow up and out of this phase in life.

 

[Ryker]

There is no such thing as a "bad person". Actions & their results can be "bad" but people are not. That's like saying that a screwdriver is "evil" because it was used to kill someone. It's just silly.

Also, whom do we give the right to take another's life? If it is wrong to kill, it is wrong to kill - end of story. How would killing the offender make us any better than the offender? We end up just the same.

 

[Saix]

Imprisoning people doesn't seem to have the desired impact on criminals who, say, murdered a person. I say if they have the mentality to brutally murder someone, they're not going to learn any kind of lesson by spending 15+ years in prison. The death penalty may seem extreme, and not always the best solution, but it sets an example to others who might have had a similar mentality to kill.


It's a pity torturing isn't condoned. That'd be a better example than any. xD

 

[Laharl]

Toturing is considered a cruel and unusual punishment xD.

anyway i agree with F.F. Fan. Murderers and rapist should never be permitted bak into society.

 

[Rasputin]

Think about what Warbourne is saying here, guys. We're not just just talking about good people who made a mistake and want to be forgiven for it. We're not talking about angry or uncaring people who commit crimes because that's all they about from their surroundings. We're talking about BAD people- God apparently screwed up with a few of us! With that in mind, I wouldn't give a "bad" person anymore of a second chance than I would give a burnt piece of toast a second chance to taste good. It isn't going to happen.

 

[Big Casino]

There is no such thing as a "bad person". Actions & their results can be "bad" but people are not. That's like saying that a screwdriver is "evil" because it was used to kill someone. It's just silly.

Also, whom do we give the right to take another's life? If it is wrong to kill, it is wrong to kill - end of story. How would killing the offender make us any better than the offender? We end up just the same.

u make a good point but i dont totally agree with you.

Killing someone is wrong, the bible says an eye for an eye, if u kill then u should die. If a man tortures and rapes a completely innocent woman then kills her i believe he should die. I dont believe that killing him makes us like him. He took an innocent life for no reason, where as he would be put to death for his crimes aginst someone else.

In cases like this i dont believe in second chances the convicted person should be put to death or rot in a jail cell his entire life

 

[Archangel]

Murder and such = no forgiveness. But the line becomes faded with gray when speaking of lesser crimes. It is also a really vague and contradicting statement to say an act is bad. Some acts yeah its a givin , murder, rape and the such but others can be argued either way. For example steeling is bad, but if your starving and you steal food, is it still that bad?

The lines become even more faded between good and bad when it comes to family or close friends. When you know someone that has commeted a crime that you care about your first thought is "well??" and try to some how rationalize it.

 

[Ryker]

Now the topic is kicking off. The Death Penalty is one of my favorite things to discuss.

Think about what Warbourne is saying here, guys. We're not just just talking about good people who made a mistake and want to be forgiven for it. We're not talking about angry or uncaring people who commit crimes because that's all they about from their surroundings. We're talking about BAD people- God apparently screwed up with a few of us! With that in mind, I wouldn't give a "bad" person anymore of a second chance than I would give a burnt piece of toast a second chance to taste good. It isn't going to happen.

According to PSALM 139:16 "Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them."

God cannot make any mistakes.


Also, I'd like to point out that in MATTHEW 25:45 Jesus says "Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me."

According to Jesus if you cannot forgive others, then you can never be forgiven by God.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

Killing someone is wrong, the bible says an eye for an eye, if u kill then u should die. If a man tortures and rapes a completely innocent woman then kills her i believe he should die. I dont believe that killing him makes us like him. He took an innocent life for no reason, where as he would be put to death for his crimes aginst someone else.

"Eye for an eye" is an Old Testament law.

If you believe that Old Testament law still applies, then you must abide by these Old Testament laws as well:

1. DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21 - If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
2. DEUTERONOMY 22:22 - If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
3. MARK 10:1-12 - Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
4. LEVITICUS 18:19 - The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
5. MARK 12:18-27 - If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
6. DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12 - If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.
7. EXODUS 31:14, 35:2 - Working on the Sabbath warrants the Death Penalty.
8. LEVITICUS 20:9 - Cursing a parent warrants the Death Penalty.
9. LEVITICUS 20:27 - Being a medium warrants the Death Penalty.
10. LEVITICUS 24:14 - Cursing God warrants the Death Penalty.
11. DEUTERONOMY 13:5 - False prophecy warrants the Death Penalty.
12. DEUTERONOMY 13:6-9, 17:2-5 - Worshipping other gods warrants the Death Penalty.
13. LEVITICUS 19:27 - Cutting your hair warrants the Death Penalty.
14. LEVITICUS 1:9 - To please God, you must make sacrifices to him.
15. LEVITICUS 20:21 - No one with a defect of the eye may approach the altar of God.
16. LEVITICUS 21:20 - No one may touch the skin of a dead pig.

Etc., etc., etc. The Old Testament was written before Jesus was born. The way I've interpreted it Old Testament laws were given to purify the body, so that later Jesus could come & purify the soul.

Once Jesus came & sacrificed himself to pay the debt of all mankind, Old Testament laws & holiness codes became a moot point. They are irrelevant to Christianity.

We're straying from the focus, but I think I'll keep with the point that Mahatma Gandhi made "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

 

[Rasputin]

According to PSALM 139:16 "Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them."

God cannot make any mistakes.

My post was what is known as sarcasm. I think I made that pretty obvious based on how it was worded...

1. DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21 - If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
2. DEUTERONOMY 22:22 - If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
3. MARK 10:1-12 - Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
4. LEVITICUS 18:19 - The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
5. MARK 12:18-27 - If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
6. DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12 - If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.
7. EXODUS 31:14, 35:2 - Working on the Sabbath warrants the Death Penalty.
8. LEVITICUS 20:9 - Cursing a parent warrants the Death Penalty.
9. LEVITICUS 20:27 - Being a medium warrants the Death Penalty.
10. LEVITICUS 24:14 - Cursing God warrants the Death Penalty.
11. DEUTERONOMY 13:5 - False prophecy warrants the Death Penalty.
12. DEUTERONOMY 13:6-9, 17:2-5 - Worshipping other gods warrants the Death Penalty.
13. LEVITICUS 19:27 - Cutting your hair warrants the Death Penalty.
14. LEVITICUS 1:9 - To please God, you must make sacrifices to him.
15. LEVITICUS 20:21 - No one with a defect of the eye may approach the altar of God.
16. LEVITICUS 21:20 - No one may touch the skin of a dead pig.

Most of these passages were terribly interpreted. Case in point- your 13'th quote, which reads in the actual text as "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard." I don't see "death penalty" anywhere in there, and it doesn't completely ban all types of hair cutting at all.

Anyways, in Christianity the "eye for an eye" philosophy was rendered irrelevant by the famous Sermon on the Mount passage in Matthew 5: 38-44. [/FONT]"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

 

[Warbsywoo]

Exactly Ambiguity, I mean, why do you think there are such things as little kids being abducted nowadays and later on it is reported that the felon was a person who had committed the crime once before?

There is no such thing as a "bad person". Actions & their results can be "bad" but people are not. That's like saying that a screwdriver is "evil" because it was used to kill someone. It's just silly.

There's always a reason for actions and results, and who has the power to affect that? People.

Also, whom do we give the right to take another's life? If it is wrong to kill, it is wrong to kill - end of story. How would killing the offender make us any better than the offender? We end up just the same.

Well, you're right, but just locking them up should be enough and therefore preventing them from becoming a menace too society in the future. I myself oppose the death penalty, by the way.

 

[Lucifer Morningstar]

There is no such thing as a "bad person". Actions & their results can be "bad" but people are not. That's like saying that a screwdriver is "evil" because it was used to kill someone. It's just silly.

On June 28, 1984, Ramirez claimed his first known victim. Ramirez entered through an opened window of Glassel Park resident Jennie Vincow, age 79. According to Philip Carlo's book, 'The Night Stalker,' he became angry after not finding anything of value to steal, and began stabbing the sleeping Vincow, eventually slitting her throat. The act of killing aroused him sexually, and he had sex with the corpse before leaving.
On March 17, 1985, Ramirez attacked 22-year-old Maria Hernandez outside her condo. He shot her, kicked her out of the way, and headed into her condo. Inside was roommate Dayle Okazaki, age 34, whom Ramirez immediately shot and killed. Hernandez survived. The bullet had ricocheted off the keys she held in her hands, as she lifted them to protect herself. Within an hour of killing Okazaki, Ramirez struck again in Monterey Park. He jumped 30-year-old Tsai-Lian Yu and pulled her out of her car onto the road. He shot several bullets into her and fled. A policeman found her still breathing, but she died before the ambulance arrived. The two attacks occurring on the same day bolstered media attention, and in turn caused panic and fear among the public. The news media dubbed the attacker, who was described as having long curly hair, bulging eyes and wide-spaced rotting teeth, "The Walk-in Killer" and "The Valley Intruder".

On March 27, Ramirez shot Vincent Zazarra, age 64, and his wife Maxine, age 44. Mrs. Zazzara's body was mutilated with several stab wounds and a T-carving on her left breast, and her eyes were gouged out. The autopsy determined that the mutilations were post-mortem. Ramirez left footprints in the flower beds, which the police photographed and cast. This was virtually the only evidence that the police had at the time. Bullets found at the scene were matched to those found at previous attacks, and the police realized a serial killer was on the loose. Vincent and Maxine's bodies were discovered in their Whittier home by their son, Peter.
By this time, a multi-county police investigation was in operation. The law enforcement agencies worked through the month of April with no additional attacks by Ramirez. Two months after killing the Zazzara couple, Ramirez attacked again. Harold Wu, age 66, was shot in the head, and his wife, Jean Wu, age 63, was punched, bound, and then violently raped. For unknown reasons, Ramirez decided to let her live. Ramirez's attacks were now in full throttle. He left behind more clues to his identity, and was named 'The Night Stalker' by the media. Survivors of his attacks provided the police with a description - Hispanic, long dark hair, and foul smelling.
On May 29, 1985, Ramirez attacked Malvial Keller, 83, and her invalid sister, Blanche Wolfe, 80, beating each with a hammer. Ramirez attempted to rape Keller, but failed. Using lipstick, he drew pentagrams on Keller's thigh and on the wall in the bedroom. Blanche survived the attack. The next day, Ruth Wilson, 41, was bound, raped, and sodomized by Ramirez, while her 12-year old son was locked in a closet. Ramirez slashed Wilson once, and then bound her and her son together, and left.
In June and July, three more women were killed. Two had their throats slit, one was beaten to death, and all three had their homes invaded in the process. On July 5 Deidre Palmer, age 16, survived being beaten with a tire iron. On July 7 Linda Fortuna, 63, was attacked and Ramirez tried to rape her, but failed. On July 20 he again struck twice. In Sun Valley he shot and killed a 32-year-old man, Chitat Assawahem, and his wife Sakima, 29, was beaten then forced to perform oral sex. Ramirez then collected valuables then proceeded to leave.Later in the same day a Glendale couple, Maxson Kneiding, 66, and his wife Lela, also 66, were shot and their corpses mutilated.
On August 6 Ramirez shot both Christopher Petersen, 38, and his wife, Virginia, 27, in the head. Both somehow survived. On August 8 Ramirez attacked a Diamond Bar couple, fatally shooting Ahmed Zia, 35, before raping, sodomizing, and forcing Zia's wife, Suu Kyi, 28, to perform fellatio on him. The description of their attacker fit the previous ones given for "The Walk-in Killer".
Ramirez then left the Los Angeles area, and on August 17, he shot to death a 66-year-old man in San Francisco, also shooting and beating his wife. The wife survived her wounds and was able to identify her attacker as "The Walk-in Killer" from police sketches. Since "The Walk-in Killer" no longer fit the modus operandi of the attacker, the news media re-dubbed him the "Night Stalker".
The next big break in the case came on August 24, 1985, Ramirez traveled 50 miles south of Los Angeles to Mission Viejo, and broke into the Mediterranean Village apartment of Bill Carns, 29, and his fiancée, Inez Erickson, 27. Ramirez shot Carns in the head and raped Erickson. He demanded she swear her love for Satan and afterwards, forced her to perform oral sex on him. He then tied her and left.




John Wayne Gacy, (March 17, 1942 - May 10, 1994) was an American serial killer. He was convicted and later executed for the rape and murder of 33 boys and men, 27 of whom he buried in a crawl space under the floor of his house, while others were found in nearby rivers, between 1972 and his arrest in 1978. He became notorious as the "Killer Clown" because of the many block parties he threw for his friends and neighbors, entertaining children in a clown suit and makeup, under the name of "Pogo the Clown."



Vlad III ?epe? has been related, by some soucers, as exceedingly cruel. Impalement was allegedly ?epe?'s preferred method of torture and execution. His method of torture was a horse attached to each of the victim's legs as a dull-ended stake was gradually forced into the body. The end of the stake was usually oiled; else the victim might die too rapidly from shock. Normally the stake was inserted into the body through the anus and was often forced through the body until it emerged from the mouth; however, there were many instances where victims were impaled through other bodily orifices or through the abdomen or chest. Infants were sometimes impaled on the stake forced through their mother's chests. The records indicate that victims were sometimes impaled so that they hung upside down on the stake.
As expected, death by impalement was slow and painful. Victims sometimes endured for hours or days. Vlad often had the stakes arranged in various geometric patterns. The most common pattern was a ring of concentric circles in the outskirts of a city that constituted his target. The height of the spear indicated the rank of the victim. The corpses were often left decaying for months.
There are claims that thousands of people were impaled at a single time. One such claim says 20,000 were impaled in the Transylvanian city of Sibiu (where Vlad the Impaler had once lived) in 1460. Another allegation asserts that during the previous year, on Saint Bartholomew's Day (in August), Vlad the Impaler had 30,000 of the merchants and officials of the Transylvanian city of Bra?ov that were breaking his authority impaled. One of the most famous woodcuts of the period shows Vlad the Impaler feasting amongst a forest of stakes and their grisly burdens outside Bra?ov, while a nearby executioner cuts apart other victims. This work of art is said to have led to the belief that cannibalism occurred, which most historians do not believe, and therefore lent itself to Bram Stoker's story of Dracula.
Impalement was Vlad the Impaler's favourite method of torture but was by no means his only one. The list of tortures he is alleged to have employed is extensive: nails in heads, cutting off of limbs, blinding, strangulation, burning, cutting off of noses and ears, mutilation of sexual organs (especially in the case of women), scalping, skinning, exposure to the elements or to animals, and boiling alive. An old Romanian story says that one could even leave a bag of gold in the middle of the street, then return and pick it up the next day, as people were so afraid to commit crimes during his reign due to these horrific means of torture and capital punishment.
No one was immune to Vlad the Impaler's attentions. His victims included women and children, peasants and great lords, ambassadors from foreign powers and merchants. Nonetheless, the vast majority of his European victims came from the merchants and boyars of Transylvania and his own country, Wallachia. Many have attempted to justify Vlad's actions on the basis of nascent nationalism and political necessity. Most of the merchants in Transylvania and Wallachia were Saxons who were seen as parasites, preying upon Romanian natives of Wallachia, while the boyars had proven their disloyalty time and time again (Vlad's own father and older brother were murdered by unfaithful boyars). His actions were likely driven by one or more of three motives: personal or political vendettas, the establishment of iron-fisted law and order in Wallachia, and nationalizing the province's economy through policies that would be identified today as economic nationalism.
Vlad ?epe? is alleged to have committed even more impalements and other tortures against invading Ottoman forces. It was reported that an invading Ottoman army turned back in fright when it encountered thousands of rotting corpses impaled on the banks of the Danube. It has also been said that in 1462 Mehmed II, the conqueror of Constantinople, a man not noted for his squeamishness, returned to Constantinople after being sickened by the sight of 20,000 impaled corpses outside of Vlad's capital of Târgovi?te. Many of the victims were Turkish prisoners of war Vlad had previously captured during the Turkish invasion. The total Turkish casualty toll in this battle reached over 40,000. The warrior sultan turned command of the campaign against Vlad over to subordinates and returned to Istanbul, even though his army had initially outnumbered Vlad's three to one and was better equipped.
Almost as soon as he came to power, his first significant act of cruelty may have been motivated by a desire of revenge as well as a need to solidify his power. Early in his reign he gave a feast for his boyars and their families to celebrate Easter. Vlad was well aware that many of these same nobles were part of the conspiracy that led to his father's assassination and the burying alive of his elder brother, Mircea. Many had also played a role in the overthrow of numerous Wallachian princes. During the feast Vlad asked his noble guests how many princes had ruled during their life times. All of the nobles present had outlived several princes. One answered that at least thirty princes had held the throne during his life. None had seen less than seven reigns. Vlad immediately had all the assembled nobles arrested. The older boyars and their families were impaled on the spot. The younger and healthier nobles and their families were marched north from Târgovi?te to the ruins of Poienari Castle in the mountains above the Arge? River. Vlad the Impaler was determined to rebuild this ancient fortress as his own stronghold and refuge. The enslaved boyars and their families were forced to labor for months rebuilding the old castle with materials from another nearby ruin. According to the reports, they labored until the clothes fell off their bodies and then were forced to continue working naked. Very few of the old gentry survived the ordeal of building Vlad's castle.
Throughout his reign, Vlad systematically eradicated the old boyar class of Wallachia. The old boyars had repeatedly undermined the power of the prince during previous reigns and had been responsible for the violent overthrow of several princes. Apparently Vlad ?epe? was determined that his own power be on a modern and thoroughly secure footing. In place of the executed boyars, Vlad promoted new men from among the free peasantry and middle class; men who would be loyal only to their prince. Many of Vlad's acts can be interpreted as efforts to strengthen and modernize the central government at the expense of the decaying feudal powers of nobility carried over from the Middle Ages.

 

[Hell_Razer]

just like Ryker said, this topic is kicking off!!!

I'm confused about it like, i thought like the death penitaly was good thing, because if you kill someone thats taking there life, so if they took some1's life then there life should b takin.

But reading all these posts maybe me think about (mainly Rykers post) it, because if you kill them, then you're no better then them.

Augh!!! It's a big cunfuzzie

 

[Warbsywoo]

just like Ryker said, this topic is kicking off!!!

I'm confused about it like, i thought like the death penitaly was good thing, because if you kill someone thats taking there life, so if they took some1's life then there life should b takin.

But reading all these posts maybe me think about (mainly Rykers post) it, because if you kill them, then you're no better then them.

The death penalty is only a good thing only if you're totally offended by what that person did. I don't agree with it, but I can see where people would get such notions.
I mean, just get criminals locked up and don't let them escape.
Let them earn their second chance at life in a clean manner, and maybe people wouldn't think so harsh about them.

 

[Ryker]

My post was what is known as sarcasm. I think I made that pretty obvious based on how it was worded...

(*shrugs.) I do not know you.

Most of these passages were terribly interpreted.

The Bible is not open for interpretation?

Exactly Ambiguity, I mean, why do you think there are such things as little kids being abducted nowadays and later on it is reported that the felon was a person who had committed the crime once before?

As human beings, we do everything habitually. It is easy to fall back into old routines.

There's always a reason for actions and results, and who has the power to affect that? People

"Affect" = "action" & "action" ≠ "people".


@Lucifer Morningstar: Nice copy/pasting. I'm assuming that the people you listed are those whom you would consider to be "bad people"?

 

[Warbsywoo]

As human beings, we do everything habitually. It is easy to fall back into old routines.

True, even though it is sad. But we do have our options, and some people do break their habits, sadly it's a small percentage.

"Affect" = "action" & "action" ≠ "people".

1.) I want a keyboard that has that = symbol with a slash on it.
2.) I need enlightenment on what that really means.


[/quote]

 

[Lucifer Morningstar]

@Lucifer Morningstar: Nice copy/pasting. I'm assuming that the people you listed are those whom you would consider to be "bad people"?

You tell me, are they bad people? Are they good people that did bad things? If so, what makes them good people?

 

[Ryker]

You tell me, are they bad people? Are they good people that did bad things? If so, what makes them good people?

In my opinion, people are neither good nor bad. We simply are. However, all action creates a consequence. If you want to know whether the action is positive or negative, simply look at the consequence of the action. Was it positive or negative?

1.) I want a keyboard that has that = symbol with a slash on it.

I used the character map on the computer.

2.) I need enlightenment on what that really means

The way in which you worded your statement pretty much said "People are their actions". So, are we merely the sum of our actions?

 

[Lucifer Morningstar]

The consequences of the actions? Lots of men, women and children were raped, tortured and died brutally. What would you think the consequences would be?

 

[Ryker]

The consequences of the actions? Lots of men, women and children were raped, tortured and died brutally. What would you think the consequences would be?

Well, you could (1) be put in jail for the remainder of your life, or (2) be put to death. Do you view either of these things as "bad"?