@LG: "Also people may be more likely to kill over bad romances, theft, and insults, as there is no law which they could fear." Those are crimes of passion. Generally, when you're angry enought that you might kill someone, you don't care if it is against the law or not.

@Ghost: But you just said you wouldn't do any of those things. What makes you think that everyone else (as opposed to just a few) are more evil than you?

"What makes you think that everyone else (as opposed to just a few) are more evil than you?"

It is perfectly clear that my moral views are not shared by a majority of people, particularly regarding theft. That is why.

@CM - some people are just fucked in the head, though. They kill without remorse and without need. They kill because they think it's fun. And I'm not just talking about the Dahlmer's or Manson's or Bundy's. I'm talking your drive by gangbangers who will kill an innocent bystander as part of an initiation into the gang. Without a legal system, these same animals would continue to kill until they were killed, as Lord Gartho points out.

@Draugnar: But those killers kill now, even with government. Right now we have the evil, murderous government, and some criminals. Take away the government, and we have some criminals. You tell me which one is better.

@Ghost: And what makes that clear? Because I seem to share your moral views. Most people on here seem to.

@CM - Those same killers would continue to kill, without a justice system to lock them up. Instead of 3 or 4 kills per gangbanger, you get 30 or 40 before another gangbanger from a rival gang kills them.

And you make a judgment about government that is your opinion and not a factual, or logical statement. I do not see our government as either evil or murderous. It may not be perfect, but it is far from evil and murderous. You may not agree with it's policies. You may not agree with it's current military activities in either Iraq or Afghanistan. I'm against Iraq, but am realistic enough to realize that abandoning Iraq's provisional government to Iran is worse than having a continued presence in there for a time. But the US policies and activites do *not* rise to "evil and murderous." We aren't talking about the Third Reich here, for Christ's sake.

@Draugnar: All wars are murderous. The death penalty is muderous. And that's just what we know about.
"Those same killers would continue to kill, without a justice system to lock them up. Instead of 3 or 4 kills per gangbanger, you get 30 or 40 before another gangbanger from a rival gang kills them." Do you have evidence that that would happen?

@Draugnar: Because I believe it would be better to have rehabilitation for serial killers and gangbangers. Don't lock them up, just make them keep coming back, until the doctors are confident they're fixed.

The death penalty is not murder or murderous and God advocated just wars. Gabriel's horn and the walls of Jericho come to mind?

Murder is the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. The death penalty is not illegal as it is a legal remedy, and there is no malice involved, so at best it could be called manslaughter, although even that has the illegal requirement, something the death penalty clearly is not. At most, you may say it is immoral in your view. I view it as an eye for an eye. Killing a killer is perfectly acceptable and I have witnessed one without remorse when the killer of a friend's mother was given the needle. He went a lot more peacably than his victims did.

@Draugnar: Murder, as defined by the Bible, is killing another person not in self-defense. Period. The death penalty is murder.
And, Jesus told us to love our enemies. Could you please explain how going to war with our enemies is loving them?

"All wars are murderous. The death penalty is muderous"

Wars are often not murderous by one party, if their cause is self-defense. Also, in an anarchy there is a risk of warfare, on a smaller scale, admittedly, but it is the civil wars and drug wars of South America and Africa that hare most horrific.

The death penalty is killing a man who has forfeited his rights by attacking and killing another human. It is not even intrinsically morally wrong;.

@Ghost: Why should a man forfeit his rights just because he killed somebody? That idea seems sick and twisted to me.

@Ghost - don't even bother... CM is either a complete fool to not see that it is justice to take one's rights when they take those exact same rights of another with malice aforethought.

@CM - Putting a rapist in a cell with Bubba who is in prison for taking justice into his own hands when his little sister was raped is justice. Let Bubba have a baseball bat and teach the child rapists what having something huge shoved into you involuntarily feels like. Likewise, humanely putting a person to death who shot and killed a guard in a bank or a clerk in a drug store is justice, not murder. They didn't think about the person they killed and their rights when they took that person's life, so that particular right must not mean much to them and their rights become forfeit.

@Draug: Yes, I know murder violates the victim's rights. But why should we take away the murderer's rights for it? That is God's job. He gave us our right, and only he can take them away.

Your opinion, CM. Don't state it with an air of authority it does not have. Also, you just stated that the murderer took away the victim's rights, then you say only God can do this. Which is it? If only God can do it, then it was impossible for the murderer to have done it, unless you are saying the murderer is (or is equal to) God. And even if you correct the obvious "can" for "may" mistake, you state with absolution that only God may take them away. Yet the murderer still did. Anyone can and anyone may take away another's rights. The question is whether it was lawful to do so. The death penalty is lawful. You cannot argue it isn't because the law allows for them. The murderer's actions were not legal.

So, your opinion/belief is that only God *should* take away rights and only God *should* punish those who would take away others, but your opinion does not fit reality and can not be forced upon others who share neither your opinions nor your beliefs as that, too, is their right.

@Draugnar: It is mt opinion because that is what the Bible says. Are you a Christian? Because you shouldn't be arguing with the Bible. "Do not judge, lest you be judged."
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Also, what is wrong with the rehabilitation plan I laid out above? Here it is again: I believe it would be better to have rehabilitation for serial killers and gangbangers. Don't lock them up, just make them keep coming back, until the doctors are confident they're fixed.

Yes, because there is only one legitimate interpretation of the bible. Certainly.

Though, tbh, I'm an atheist, so your supernaturalism doesn't wash anyway. And given that God's existence is must necessarily be a matter of faith, its not a good basis for ethics.

"Yes, because there is only one legitimate interpretation of the bible. Certainly." Yes, their is only one legitamite interpretation of the Bible.

Let's start with your out of context quotes...
"Judge not lest you be judged" (the KJV version) continues with "...for by what measure ye meet, it shall be met unto you." I've never killed, raped, or molested a person, so I'm safe with passing judgement on child moelsters, rapists, and murderers. Epic fail for out of context.

"Let he who is without sin..." was a reference to that fact that stoning a prostitute to death ins't justice: it's overkill. Second epic fail.

As far as your "plan"... What do you do when the killer refuses to come in for his therapy? There are certain unrepentant people in society. If you don't lock them up or put them down, they will never get better and they will continue to kill. If you don't think this is the case, then you are extremely naive and, I suspect, not yet even in high school and obviously not a mature and reasoning adult. Epic fail number three.

@Draugnar: Hmmm. You tell me my interpretation is an opinion, and then state yours like it is a fact. Can someone say 'hypocrite'?

""Yes, because there is only one legitimate interpretation of the bible. Certainly." Yes, their is only one legitamite interpretation of the Bible."

And the bible isn't at all ambiguous, ever?

@CM - hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. So which is it? KJV? NKJV? NIV? NRSV? Or what about a German, Spanish, French, or Italian translation? The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek. The Bible you read is a translation and, by default an interpretation. Wanna go back to the source? Different versions use different codexes. You really are a naive fool...

@Draugnar: Take him by force. As long as they don't physically hurt him, and let him go in between sessions, I wouldn't mind.

Actually, I did state facts. You use excerpts taken out of context. I put them back into context. Fact. Plane and simple. You then presented a plan. I shot it down with obvious and demonstrable facts. Period. Again, you're a fool and a tool to boot.

@Draugnar: No, you're the naive fool. (Who's also a hypocrite). And I want to learn Hebrew and Greek so I can read the bible in it's original language, but all the non-paraphrase translations are not interpretations, they are translations. Sure, a word may be mistranslated here or there, but for the most part, they are the same as the original.

But then your are restraining him and that violates his rights the same as if you locked him up. Do you not see the double standard you are applying. You feel it is wrong to stand up and take a persons rights away when they have done the same to others, yet you turn around and say "Take him by force" which violates one of those rights you say only God should be allowed to violate.

And where does it say "Justice is mine, I will repay" (clearly your opinion). It says "vengence is mine" and vengence is going beyond justice.

I'm not a hypocrite. I refuted your out of context quotes by putting them back into context. do you deny that the very angry mob was about to stone a prostitute to death? Do you deny that the rest of "Judge not..." makes it clear that we shouldn't judge unless we are ready to stand up to the same measure we apply in our judgement? It clearly states it. You just find it convenient to ignore it and would rather call me a hypocrit that argue the facts of your out of context quotes. Seeing as you'd rather not argue the facts for quotes *you* brought up. I consider this conversation done and you to be a troll. No further responses are forthcoming from me.

@Draugar: Here is your logic. I give an interpretation of the Bible, and it's my opinion. You give an interpretation of the Bible, and it's fact. That is hypocritical. Especially since your contexts don't support your argument. Especially the second one. Jesus could have been referring to what I think, or what you think. It in no way supports your argument over mine.

@Draug: Why does the fact that there was an angry mob about to stone the prostitute exclude the possibility of a deeper meaning in what Jesus said?