Do you believe in the death penalty? does that have anything to do with your religion?

Answer 1

I'd say, no, I don't think it should be used.... And no, it doesn't really have to do anything with my religious views.

Answer 2

I do not support the death penalty in any way. I believe the
if you do the crime you do the time however if a person murders someone and gets the death penalty, the person on
the side of the law would then have to be the administrator
of the lethal injection, that to me would also be murder and
wouldn't that be on your conscience? I do not support crime
but they re taking it too far, it's no longer an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth. Jail is enough suffering we don't know what all goes on behind the scenes. As far as religion goes it'

Answer 3

I do not believe in the death penalty and it does have something to do with my religion. I believe - and i know god supports me in this one - that the commandment "do not kill" was one of the most important ones. And i also believe that every person deserves a second chance. Or a third chance ... as many chances as there are stars in the sky if necessary. It has to be done in a safe way though. And sometimes harsher punishments than jail need to be implemented as a deterrent to crime. But the death penalty is never the answer.

Answer 4

No, I do not believe in death penalty. Judging by the mentality on this site, I don't believe the average person has enough intelligence to understand the testimony they hear nor do they understand the import of sentencing a person to death. I consider the death penalty to cruel and unusual punishment. I don't have a religion.

Answer 5

Yes, I believe in the death penalty. No it has nothing to do with my religion, although I believe my religion allows for it.

Answer 6

God left scriptures injunctions for human beings. In Vedic scriptures we find complete religious injunctions. For example in the Manu-samhitä, which enjoins that a murderer must be put to death, and that execution should not ultimately be considered an act of violence.
But aside from rigid adherence to scripture, we have to consider whether we can answer the objections raised by opponents of capital punishment: Isn’t execution an act of cruelty equaling the murder it is designed to punish? Can we guarantee that the death penalty be administered fairly, without discrimination based on race, color, creed, or political affiliation? Does execution have any effect in deterring future murderers?
Deterrence seems to be one of the weakest objections. Obviously execution would prevent the murderer from killing again. And how could it not affect the behavior of potential criminals? American opponents of capital punishment point out that states that allow the death penalty don’t have consistently lower murder rates than states that do not. But the fact is that even states with the death penalty have never executed more than five percent of their convicted murderers. Everyone would agree that an execution rate of one in twenty has no deterrent value.
Even assuming, though, that a higher execution rate would deter potential killers, can the cruelty of execution be justified? Isn’t a murderer someone like you and me who got a bad break?
On this question the Vedic texts shed some new light. According to Vedic authorities, a human being, unlike an animal, is responsible for his actions not only under state laws but under the universal laws of karma, and the Manu-saàhitä states that the karmic punishment a murderer receives in his next life is far worse, far more cruel if you will. than the guillotine, gas chamber, electric chair, or firing squad. The Manu-saàhitä further asserts, however, that capital punishment by the state obviates karmic punishment in a future life. Thus the party who benefits most from an execution is not the society relieved of a criminal element, not the victim’s family and friends pacified by the retribution, but the killers themselves, relieved as they are from all karmic reaction and free to start afresh in a new life.
But assuming that both karmic justice and the deterrent effect of the death penalty are facts, how can we assure ourselves that those with the power to use the death penalty would do so fairly? If we again refer to Vedic sources, we find that the leaders in Vedic history who held this power of life and death were räjarsis, or saintly kings, men who perfectly combined absolute monarchical power with wisdom and impartiality. One might contend that the saintly qualities of these kings are exaggerated, if not purely mythological. But sidestepping that debate for now, the more relevant point here is that the Vedic texts strongly associate an unwavering stand on capital punishment with its implementation by men of perfect character.
Although this counters the argument that the death penalty is itself a criminal, unsaintly act, we must face the fact that we don’t have an overabundance of saintly characters in the ranks of our leaders (or any other ranks, for that matter) anywhere in the world. If the death penalty must go hand in hand with saintliness, where are those saintly hands?
We are therefore back to square one: any instruction, however valuable, can wreak havoc if misused. In the hands of a surgeon, a book on liver transplants may be an asset, but you can’t let just anyone cut you open, no matter what they’ve read. The prescribed Vedic cure for the capital punishment controversy is available, but saintly leaders to administer the prescription aren’t.

Answer 7

Tough question. Thankfully I've never been in the position of knowing anyone who was the victim of a crime deserving of capital punishment, and I'm not sure what my perspective would be in that situation.

Taking the life of a murderer may deter future murders, but it cannot ameliorate the crime that has already occurred. The victim is still dead and cannot be returned to life by another death.

I believe that God will judge us all some day for how we have chosen to live our lives. I also believe that human beings can and sometimes do make mistakes, and can and sometimes do make significant changes in their lives. I am not so perfect myself as to believe that I should determine how others should pay for their own sins.

Answer 8

I am against the death penalty. Life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and no special privileges of any kind is a fate worse than death. This is my personal stance and has no bearing on my religious beliefs.

Answer 9

Yes I do. It doesn't have as much to do with relegion as it does with survival.

There IS problems with it. One asked one time if I would support it if were me who was the one to be the one the who pulled the switch, pulled the plug or gave the injection. Most of the time...no. Other times I would do it without any problem at all.

There are times in which no one knows what was going on in a persons heart and mind at the time. That....I do beleive God has the answers, And justice is served. If I didn't feel certain....I would say no. I just know there are people who don't feel the same. I then truely do have to go by faith alone. Pilot "washed his hands" of what the "people" wanted. He didn't "agree" with it. But he was bound by laws that supported it.

Answer 10

My church is staunchly against the death penalty, and so am I. Personally, regardless of how heinous a person's crimes may be, I would not feel comfortable playing God and killing that person myself. And if I'm not willing to do it myself, why should I be comfortable allowing my tax dollars to pay for the services of people who have a sufficient lack of conscience to take the life of another human being in the name of the state?

Answer 11

A firm "no" on the death penalty. I am an Atheist, so I don't have a religion.