Chinese death vans

[Drider_it]

if this was posted before sorry but i couldnt find it in a search any ways.. link

http://web.amnesty.org/web/wire.nsf/May2003/China

The use of lethal injection as a method of execution is becoming increasingly popular among provincial authorities in China. In January 2003 a journalist and a group of "several dozen" court officers from all prefectures, cities and counties in Gansu province were taken by officials of the provincial high court to an unnamed detention centre near Lanzhou to attend a lecture and then witness the execution by lethal injection of 11 convicted prisoners. This was reportedly the largest group of prisoners to be executed by lethal injection on one single occasion since the method was introduced in Lanzhou.

Execution by lethal injection as an alternative to the firing squad was introduced in China in the revised Criminal Procedure Law in 1997 and was first used on an experimental basis in Yunnan province. The current "strike hard" anti-crime campaign, launched in 2001, under which defendants are often sentenced to death for crimes which at other times are punishable by imprisonment, has led to a rise in executions. During 2001 and 2002 AI recorded more than 5,900 death sentences and more than 3,500 executions in China, although the true figures were believed to be much higher.

In an effort to improve cost-efficiency, Chinese provincial authorities are beginning to introduce so-called mobile execution vans. These are intended to replace the traditional method of execution by firing squad in which prisoners are taken to an execution ground and made to kneel with hands cuffed before being shot in the head. Officials in Yunnan province explained that only four people are required to carry out the execution in the mobile vans: the executioner, one member of the court, one official from the procuratorate and one forensic doctor.

Eighteen mobile executions vans, converted 24-seater buses, are being distributed to all intermediate courts and one high court in Yunnan province. The windowless execution chamber at the back contains a metal bed on which the prisoner is strapped down. Once the needle is attached by the doctor, an act which breaches international medical ethics, a police officer presses a button and an automatic syringe inserts the lethal drug into the prisoner's vein. The execution can be watched on a video monitor next to the driver’s seat and can be recorded if required.

The newspaper Beijing Today reported that use of the vans was approved by the legal authorities in Yunnan province on 6 March. Later that same day, two farmers, Liu Huafu, aged 21, and Zhou Chaojie, aged 25, who had been convicted of drug trafficking, were executed by lethal injection in a mobile execution van. Zhao Shijie, president of the Yunnan Provincial High Court, was quoted as praising the new system: "The use of lethal injection shows that China’s death penalty system is becoming more civilized and humane." However, members of China's legal community have voiced their concerns that it will only lead to an increase in the use of the death penalty.


wow and here i thought 3rd world organ harvesting was bad.. whats next.. death from jaywalking?

[MSD]

It's kind of sad that a we treat them so well when they do this kind of shit in blatant violation of human rights. If I was president, I'd yank their MFN status out from under their feet so fast they'd flip over three times before landing on their backward asses.

[Chiuey]

that is some crazy shit.

[Gortexfogg]

What a way to save money...put all government agencies in the back of vans. But, having a van like that is a scrary thought when those officials could pick up anyone off the street and execute them. I mean, if these things got into the wrong hands... I think the Chinese should explore other avenues of reducing crime besides killing as many criminals as possible.

[MageB420666]

well, I agree that another method should be found, but then again it'd be quite hard to find enough prison space for a country with over 1 billion citizens. Even if only 1% of the population was ever convicted of a crime your talking about over 10 million prisoners to house in a country that is not known for it's wealth. Killing the "hardened" criminals is pretty much the only option they have.

[Mephisto2]

Originally Posted by MageB420666

Killing the "hardened" criminals is pretty much the only option they have.

Forgive my frankness, but that's complete and utter bullshit.

Killing is the only option they have? Due to their high population?!!

What's next? You support mandatory abortions due to their one child per family policy?


The death penalty is wrong. Always. No matter what. Period.


Mr Mephisto

[Mephisto2]

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

It's kind of sad that a we treat them so well when they do this kind of shit in blatant violation of human rights. If I was president, I'd yank their MFN status out from under their feet so fast they'd flip over three times before landing on their backward asses.

After the People's Republic of China, the United States executes more people every year than any other country. There are currently about 3,500 prisoners on "Death Row" in the US.

The US is also the only country in the world, apart from Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, that executes children. Over 70 prisoners remain on death row in the USA for crimes committed when they were 16 or 17 years old.

I agree that China has a lot to answer for. But the US is far from innocent in its policies with regards to the death penalty itself.


Mr Mephisto

[MageB420666]

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

The US is also the only country in the world, apart from Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, that executes children. Over 70 prisoners remain on death row in the USA for crimes committed when they were 16 or 17 years old.


Mr Mephisto

I would hardly consider a 16 or 17 year old a "child". They are old enough that they are capable of making their own decisions and facing the consequences.

And no my idea is not complete and utter bullshit. This is a poor country with a huge population. Keeping prisoners is very expensive, why should they waste resources taking care of criminals(I mean people who commit murder, rape, and various other severe crimes, not every common theif or political prisoner)? And yes in their case I would consider mandatory abortions after a second(i'm pretty sure they can have two kids) child to be better than the alternative, which is having the population outgrow the local food supply and have the kids die slowly from starvation and malnutrition. Just because we produce enough food to feed twice the world's population does not mean it's getting distributed all over the world. Although that problem is going to sort istself out sooner or later, the culture values male children for inheritence purposes and therefore most couples get an abortion if the child is not male, due to the limit on children allowed per person, which will lead to a great imbalance between men and women over there, so they will actually be incapable of having as many children. It sucks, but that's life.

[Manic_Skafe]

Originally Posted by MageB420666

I would hardly consider a 16 or 17 year old a "child". They are old enough that they are capable of making their own decisions and facing the consequences.

If it were up to me, the average 16-17 year old wouldn't be behind the wheel of a car and they certainly would not have to a pay off their debt to society with their lives for mistakes they've made at that time.

You might not be the one pulling the plug (or pushing down the plunger) but an "It sucks, but that's life" opinon is an extremely dangerous perspective to have.

Surely our cultures are different but any society that views killing people on a mass scale as an admissiable act if it's done for the greater good of society is flawed - the death penalty is tell-tale proof of a society that has yet to understand the value of life. The only thing more disgusting than these vans of death is how their govt's disregard of the most basic of inherent human rights will leave a lasting influence on those people.

One look at the US' crime rates is more than proof enough that this "punish over rehabilitation" form of justice doesn't work and only adds fuel to the fire.

[The Phenomenon]

Man thats pretty sick IMO.

I am all for the Death Penalty is certain cases of rape and murder but this turns it into an everyday, run-of-the-mill thing.

[Drider_it]

nder which defendants are often sentenced to death for crimes which at other times are punishable by imprisonment, has led to a rise in executions.

it didnt say there were "hardened" criminals.. it could be something simple as car theft to.. dare i say shopliffting to feed their family.. gotta remember thier laws are different from ours.

[MSD]

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

After the People's Republic of China, the United States executes more people every year than any other country. There are currently about 3,500 prisoners on "Death Row" in the US.

The US is also the only country in the world, apart from Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, that executes children. Over 70 prisoners remain on death row in the USA for crimes committed when they were 16 or 17 years old.

I agree that China has a lot to answer for. But the US is far from innocent in its policies with regards to the death penalty itself.


Mr Mephisto

I have made no attempt to defend unethical US death penalty laws. I merely stated that, if in charge of things, I would not be doing business with a country that does this. I think it goes without saying that I'd be working against the death penalty in the US as well.

[solo2020]

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Forgive my frankness, but that's complete and utter bullshit.

Killing is the only option they have? Due to their high population?!!

What's next? You support mandatory abortions due to their one child per family policy?


The death penalty is wrong. Always. No matter what. Period.


Mr Mephisto

As much of a liberal thinker I am, I do believe that the government does have the right to execute its populous (punishment must fit the crime). These would include (but not limited to) - murder, serial-rape, repeated violent acts.

Now a lot would argue that the gov't should not execute it the body of people to which they are looking over. A lot of these people believe that these criminals can become somewhat productive members of society through hard time and counseling. But let us look at the cold hard facts people. Population is rising. Crime is rising. A good portion of these crimes is a result of the judicial system failing us , which it has done numerous times.

[Mephisto2]

Originally Posted by MageB420666

I would hardly consider a 16 or 17 year old a "child". They are old enough that they are capable of making their own decisions and facing the consequences.

Well, what you consider is not really relevant. Those under 18 are considered children, or if you prefer "juveniles". That's the legal definition.

I'm glad you're not running things. :-)

And no my idea is not complete and utter bullshit. This is a poor country with a huge population. Keeping prisoners is very expensive, why should they waste resources taking care of criminals(I mean people who commit murder, rape, and various other severe crimes, not every common theif or political prisoner)?

Because the death penalty is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I appreciate you don't share my opinion, but I firmly believe taking human life is not justified.

And yes in their case I would consider mandatory abortions after a second(i'm pretty sure they can have two kids) child to be better than the alternative, which is having the population outgrow the local food supply and have the kids die slowly from starvation and malnutrition.

Again, despite my attempts to see your point of view, this is utter nonesense. Chinese families with more than one (or even two) children are not slowly dying of starvation. I am at a complete and utter loss that you would even consider mandatory abortions. There's nothing really I can say to that...

Just because we produce enough food to feed twice the world's population does not mean it's getting distributed all over the world. Although that problem is going to sort istself out sooner or later, the culture values male children for inheritence purposes and therefore most couples get an abortion if the child is not male, due to the limit on children allowed per person, which will lead to a great imbalance between men and women over there, so they will actually be incapable of having as many children. It sucks, but that's life.

Very well and good, but that's got nothing to do with industrialized state sponsored murder, which is what these so-called "Death Vans" are...

Mr Mephisto

[Glory's Sun]

Originally Posted by Manic_Skafe

If it were up to me, the average 16-17 year old wouldn't be behind the wheel of a car and they certainly would not have to a pay off their debt to society with their lives for mistakes they've made at that time.

You might not be the one pulling the plug (or pushing down the plunger) but an "It sucks, but that's life" opinon is an extremely dangerous perspective to have.

One look at the US' crime rates is more than proof enough that this "punish over rehabilitation" form of justice doesn't work and only adds fuel to the fire.

So just to clarify, if a 16 or 17 year old "child" (which IMO that age shouldn't be considered a child anymore, by that age they are fully aware of right and wrong and consequences) was to kill someone or even worse kill a handful of people, you would suggest that they spend their life in prison? I haven't been to death row but I think it would be safe to say that people in there would rather go ahead and die than spend their life fighting, getting raped, getting stabbed and what not for another 80 years.

Let's also venture further and ask ourselves this. When is a person "rehabillitated"? Really. Someone goes out and rapes 30 women or somone kills 1 or more people. There is no guarantee that a person has changed. I've seen it countless times in society where the justice system gives them another chance and they do fine for a while then they crack. I think that capital punishment IS a necessary form of punishment for certain crimes and/or habitiual (sp?) violent criminals.

This debate could also go further and say that the system doesn't give enough opportunities for prisoners once they reach the "outside" I will agree to this to some regard but it is a natural instinct to be careful of people who were involved in a violent crime.

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

I have made no attempt to defend unethical US death penalty laws. I merely stated that, if in charge of things, I would not be doing business with a country that does this. I think it goes without saying that I'd be working against the death penalty in the US as well.

The Death Penalty is one of the few issues on which I have done a complete reversal of viewpoint. Time was, I was a staunch advocate of Capital Punishment. Now...I cannot condemn the practice loudly enough.

However...while I agree that forfeiture of Most Favored Nation status is certainly in order, I beleive that to completely abolish all trade relations with China would devastate our own economy. When China was holding one of our U.S. Navy EP-3E Aries II aircraft, after it collided with a Chinese fighter jet over the South China Sea, I attempted a personal "boycott" of all goods that were of Chinese manufacture. Try to buy so much as a pair of shoes. It was only at this time that I realized the extent to which the goods that we consume are made in China. While we are certainly capable of it, I do not feel that US industry is prepared, at this point, to assume the massive burden of production required to satiate our consumerism.

[Mephisto2]

Originally Posted by guccilvr

So just to clarify, if a 16 or 17 year old "child" (which IMO that age shouldn't be considered a child anymore, by that age they are fully aware of right and wrong and consequences)

So at what age should they be considered juvenile (or "children")?

15?
14?
13?
12?

Who decides?

You?

By definition, when there is a distinction between adult and child, there must be a cut-off point. Western legal doctrine has dictated, for well over a hundred years, that this is at 18 years.

Feel free to disagree, but your opinion is unlikely to overturn hundreds of years of legal, social and cultural precendence.


Mr Mephisto

[warrrreagl]

Ooops. I thought this was a thread about Asian drivers in general (Chinese death vans). Sorry.......

[Glory's Sun]

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

So at what age should they be considered juvenile (or "children")?

15?
14?
13?
12?

Who decides?

You?

By definition, when there is a distinction between adult and child, there must be a cut-off point. Western legal doctrine has dictated, for well over a hundred years, that this is at 18 years.

Feel free to disagree, but your opinion is unlikely to overturn hundreds of years of legal, social and cultural precendence.


Mr Mephisto

You're right it is unlikely to overtun years of legal social and cultural precedence but there are exceptions to every rule. In our system how many times is the question asked "will he be tried as an adult" how many times is that question asked without the public knowing about it? The majority of children begin learning right from wrong and consequences thereof from birth. And in my own *opinion* I believe that unless the person has a mental problem that it doesn't take 18 years for someone to understand what's right and what's wrong or that doing something violent to someone won't affect them in any way or that there's no consequences for their actions. (sorry about the run on sentence) Furthermore, I also believe that if you simply take a 16 or 17 year old and tell them "it's ok...just don't do it again" because they are a "child" in the eyes of law that you will continue to see an uprising of criminal behavior and violent acts. Seriously if someone knows they can do something and get away with it, what will stop them from doing it? It happens every day in society. I'm not saying that every person should be killed. I'm just saying that even if they are 16 or 17 that if that's the punishment that fits the crime.. then that is what needs to be done. I personally know a "kid" who is 17 years old. He was in a gang in Miami Florida. He shot and killed a kid point blank for no reason then shot 2 other kids who are now vegetables. I asked the guy why he did it when I went to visit him , he said he was angry and that the kids were talking shit about his gang. He was sorry about what happend but he was also very mature saying that he deserved to die because he took someone's life and it would only be fair. He is currently awaiting trial. It was sad to see..because yes he was young but the guy only knew violence his whole life. That is a different story though.

[gondath]

The lethal injection vans make execution a little too accessible. Prisoners on death row should have to been taken to a set area to be put to death. I'm not entirely certain lethal injection is the most humane method though. I think several gunshots at close range would be quicker, less horrifying, and probably cheaper, too.

[animosity]

I dont have a problem with this at all. They broke the law. They should know the consequences. If I knew I was going to be killed for jaywalking you can be damn sure that I wouldnt jaywalk. Now I realize that is an extreme, but you get my point. If the consequences for crimes are high you can be sure most people will not risk it.

If you can not function in society, then we will remove you.

-I realize most of you will not agree with me, but this is my opinion.

[Delvid]

How many of these new vans are headed to Texas? This could affect the trade deficit.

[p0thead]

[QUOTE=animosity]I dont have a problem with this at all. They broke the law. They should know the consequences. If I knew I was going to be killed for jaywalking you can be damn sure that I wouldnt jaywalk. Now I realize that is an extreme, but you get my point. If the consequences for crimes are high you can be sure most people will not risk it. [QUOTE]

that is a little extreme but i definitely get what you are trying to say. if you kill someone, expect to pay back with your life. now im not saying defending your life or your family, friends, etc.. but if you kill someone while committing a robbery, i truly believe you should punished by death. you have hurt so many people indirectly (coworkers, family, etc..) that there i dont see any other alternative. why should the taxpayers pay for your crime? now other crimes like jaywalking, petty theft, those should be punishable by restitution plus an increased fine. you pay for whatever you stole, except you dont keep the product plus 200% of the cost or so for getting caught. should make up for all the times you did not get caught... sounds fair to me!

[bigoldalphamale]

Originally Posted by animosity

I dont have a problem with this at all. They broke the law. They should know the consequences. If I knew I was going to be killed for jaywalking you can be damn sure that I wouldnt jaywalk. Now I realize that is an extreme, but you get my point. If the consequences for crimes are high you can be sure most people will not risk it.

If you can not function in society, then we will remove you.

-I realize most of you will not agree with me, but this is my opinion.

i agree with you. career criminals have no place in society. you can screw up one, two, three times with minor offenses. but if your minor offense list is 30 pages long, and contains a rape or murder...you are a threat to society...even in a prison where others are serving time for lesser offenses. there is no reason that a hippie busted for selling a few pounds of dope should have to serve time with a guy who has committed multiple murder or multiple rape. period. they (the hardened ones incapable of rehabilitation reassimilation) must be removed. barbaric? yes? inhumane? possibly. but absolutely necessary.

[Mephisto2]

Originally Posted by animosity

I dont have a problem with this at all. They broke the law. They should know the consequences. If I knew I was going to be killed for jaywalking you can be damn sure that I wouldnt jaywalk. Now I realize that is an extreme, but you get my point. If the consequences for crimes are high you can be sure most people will not risk it.

The only problem with this statement animosity is that you're wrong.

Extensive research and analysis has proven that the Death Penalty does NOT in fact act as a deterrant. It is simply an excercise in vengence. If that's what you want and believe in, then fine. Just admit it. Don't try to hide it in some psycho-babble nonesense about making the world safer, deterring criminals or preventing crime.

If you want references, including links to FBI and US Government studies, you can start at http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...cid=12&did=167

Add to the fact that you would certainly end up executing innocent people and you can see why most modern, civilized Western societies are turning away from or repealing Death Penalty laws. Most "civilized" countries. Just not the United States.

If you can not function in society, then we will remove you.

-I realize most of you will not agree with me, but this is my opinion.

That kind of sentiment was pretty prevalent in 1930's Germany too.


Mr Mephisto

[warrrreagl]

But is the function of the death penalty to deter other people from committing similar crimes? Or is it to prevent that one person from committing similar crimes?

If it is the former, then it may not be working.

If it is the latter, then it works 100% of the time.

[MageB420666]

I think executions should NOT be done in a humane way, if you did something bad enough to deserve execution then you were obviously not being humane to someone else, so why the hell should your punishment be painless. And in my opionion single offense violent rapists should be executed also. That is just my opinion though.

[rockogre]

And they are thinking of having the next Olympics there!

[xepherys]

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Forgive my frankness, but that's complete and utter bullshit.

Killing is the only option they have? Due to their high population?!!

What's next? You support mandatory abortions due to their one child per family policy?


The death penalty is wrong. Always. No matter what. Period.


Mr Mephisto

Oh my... *looks for his soapbox*

Why is it wrong? Always? No matter what? Period?

Because it's unmoral to kill? So we let the killers (and rapists and so on and so forth) live? Because we might, every once in a while kill an innocent person? I'm sure it's much better for them to rot in prison for decades until some new forensic science comes out to prove them innocent.

Personally, I hate the fact that we pay tax dollars to keep KNOWN guilty child molesters and rapists in prisons! WTF is that? I understand no "cruel or unusual punishment"... but death is not cruel, and it's not unusual. *shrug*

[Mephisto2]

Well, I guess that you and I simply disagree on the death penalty at a fundamental level.

1) It's not a deterant
2) It costs more than life in prison
3) It kills innocent people
4) It's state sponsored murder
5) It's hypocritical
6) It goes against so-called Christian values

I can't change your opinion. If you think a guy murdering someone is wrong, why don't you think the state murdering them is wrong? I just don't get it.

If, however, you simply believe in vengence, well then fine. At least that would be an honest answer. I simply disagree. Prison yes. Death? No.

Mr Mephisto

[animosity]

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

The only problem with this statement animosity is that you're wrong.
Extensive research and analysis has proven that the Death Penalty does NOT in fact act as a deterrant. It is simply an excercise in vengence.

This is true. Most murderers/rapist are beyond caring about the repercussions. This is why I say, remove them(with as little cost as possible)... If they do not care about laws then why bother keeping them around? I realize some people make mistakes, but these are not mistakes I find redeemable...

and my statement was not wrong... i said "If I knew I was going to be killed for jaywalking you can be damn sure that I wouldnt jaywalk." Are you telling me you would risk jaywalking if you knew you would be killed if caught?

but hey, I realize this is not a subject that is easily resolved. So you think your way, I'll think my way, and we will all be happy

[Glory's Sun]

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

6) It goes against so-called Christian values

Mr Mephisto

"an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"

[MageB420666]

Originally Posted by guccilvr

"an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"

Ummm, that isn't Christian doctrine, that's Hammurabi's code.

[Glory's Sun]

Originally Posted by MageB420666

Ummm, that isn't Christian doctrine, that's Hammurabi's code.

no?? here it is in Exodus 21

Personal Injuries
12 "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death.
13 However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate.
14 But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death.
15 "Anyone who attacks [3] his father or his mother must be put to death.
16 "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.
17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.
18 "If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist [4] and he does not die but is confined to bed,
19 the one who struck the blow will not be held responsible if the other gets up and walks around outside with his staff; however, he must pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely healed.
20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,
21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [5] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.
23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
26 "If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye.
27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.
28 "If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible.
29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death.
30 However, if payment is demanded of him, he may redeem his life by paying whatever is demanded.
31 This law also applies if the bull gores a son or daughter.
32 If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels [6] of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned.
33 "If a man uncovers a pit or digs one and fails to cover it and an ox or a donkey falls into it,
34 the owner of the pit must pay for the loss; he must pay its owner, and the dead animal will be his.
35 "If a man's bull injures the bull of another and it dies, they are to sell the live one and divide both the money and the dead animal equally.
36 However, if it was known that the bull had the habit of goring, yet the owner did not keep it penned up, the owner must pay, animal for animal, and the dead animal will be his

Christian Values

Old King James Version

[animosity]

Originally Posted by warrrreagl

Ooops. I thought this was a thread about Asian drivers in general (Chinese death vans). Sorry.......

You make me choke on my food...

[MageB420666]

Ok, sorry, I was wrong, but I do know that it was in Hammurabi's code, which was written a long time before the bible, I think around 1200 B.C.

[Fire]

The question that i would like answered, is , what crimes that formerly were not death penalty offences are now death offences- seems that that is a big factor in how humane the sysem in china is now- anybody got any data on what crimes they kill you for over there?

[Mephisto2]

Currently, 68 crimes can bring the death penalty in China and most are non-violent, including smuggling, producing forged currency, financial fraud, theft from ancient tombs and organising prostitution, the report said.

Ref: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english...ent_364029.htm

I also recommend this report: http://www.iuscrim.mpg.de/info/aktue...e/deathprc.pdf


Mr Mephisto

[Mephisto2]

Originally Posted by guccilvr

"an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"

"Thou shalt not kill"

Now, let me think. What is more important in Christian doctrine? The Ten Commandments, the 'forgiving' nature of Christianity, treating your neighbour as you would haev them treat you?

"Let he without sin cast the first stone"


In other words, you can find justification for almost anything in the bible. But 99% of people agree that Christianity is not more associated with "an eye for an eye" (in fact, that's an argument that is often used against Islam!), but more with "thou shall not kill"

So, I repeat. It goes against so-called Christian doctrine.

As an atheist, I really couldn't give a shit if it does or not. I just thinki it's morally wrong.



Mr Mephisto

I do think the Chinese have taken this to the extreme, I've also heard and read stories of harvesting organs from prisoners for transplants. Hey... waste not, want not (ok, that was bad)

I personally believe the death penalty is a necessary evil. There are persons who commit violent crimes and will never, for whatever reason or excuse they can come up with, be productive members of a safe and rational society. I'm talking in cases of pre-meditated or serial murder, serial rape and the like. Tell me what good Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer would have ever been to society? They are a permanent menace and have no place among the living. Back to this thread, I don't think drug trafficking or use justifies a bullet in the head or one way trip in the death bus