PDA

View Full Version : Public Execution/Modes of Execution



CaughtintheMiddle1990
05-08-2010, 09:56 PM
What do you guys think of the concept? I'm talking similar to what they did in days of old--or even here as late as 1936--where an execution became an event, done in public, etc? Do you think we should still do that? I think I would support it but only for those convicted of two very narrow type of crimes--terrorists and traitors. For example making the execution of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed public would be fitting.

Also--does anyone else think the primary mode of execution--lethal injection--is a little bit too ''soft?" I mean if you look at the Death Penalty in terms of acting as a deterrent--is someone who is unafraid of death going to really fear a painless death such as LI?
I think some harder punishments should be instated, or in some cases, reinstated.

Rockntractor
05-08-2010, 09:58 PM
Go away!:rolleyes:

Articulate_Ape
05-08-2010, 09:59 PM
It is not the "softness" it is the expense. Rope and bullets are significantly cheaper.

Articulate_Ape
05-08-2010, 10:00 PM
Go away!:rolleyes:


Don't be a swine.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
05-08-2010, 10:01 PM
Go away!:rolleyes:


It is not the "softness" it is the expense. Rope and bullets are significantly cheaper.

Not only that why do we allow people who have been condemned to death sometimes 10, 20 years to linger on death row, only swallowing public money and resources to house and keep them alive? It may be a rare occurance, but even still.
And I think would-be criminals should fear the death penalty.

Articulate_Ape
05-08-2010, 10:01 PM
Let me ask you, CITM. How would you deal with the condemned?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
05-08-2010, 10:07 PM
Let me ask you, CITM. How would you deal with the condemned?

Swiftly, that is, not allowing them to live for a decades or decades longer than they should've on death row, and also they should punished fitting with the crime they committed. For arguments' sake, let's limit the death penalty to those who murder--different crimes which lead to murder would merit different means of execution. This may sound brutal but for example let's say for example we have a convicted child rapist and murderer---He should suffer in the same way his victim did, before he dies. Throw him in with other sex offenders maybe; He'll have lots of fun being the rape victim now.

Why should a monster who tortures or mutilates others before they die be allowed a quick painless needle in the arm? There's three main arguments for the death penalty--Deterrence, Revenge and Practicality. If we go by the detterence argument, as I said, a painless needle in the arm doesn't really sound too intimidating. As for the revenge argument, again does killing a person who tortured or raped his victim before murdering them painlessly sound just? As for practicality, it's why i support the death penalty.

Rockntractor
05-08-2010, 10:55 PM
Swiftly, that is, not allowing them to live for a decades or decades longer than they should've on death row, and also they should punished fitting with the crime they committed. For arguments' sake, let's limit the death penalty to those who murder--different crimes which lead to murder would merit different means of execution. This may sound brutal but for example let's say for example we have a convicted child rapist and murderer---He should suffer in the same way his victim did, before he dies. Throw him in with other sex offenders maybe; He'll have lots of fun being the rape victim now.

Why should a monster who tortures or mutilates others before they die be allowed a quick painless needle in the arm? There's three main arguments for the death penalty--Deterrence, Revenge and Practicality. If we go by the detterence argument, as I said, a painless needle in the arm doesn't really sound too intimidating. As for the revenge argument, again does killing a person who tortured or raped his victim before murdering them painlessly sound just? As for practicality, it's why i support the death penalty.

Try eating your cereal with a little honey on it tomorrow morning, and cut back a little on the caffeine.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
05-08-2010, 11:00 PM
Let me ask you, CITM. How would you deal with the condemned?


Try eating your cereal with a little honey on it tomorrow morning, and cut back a little on the caffeine.

Another great reply on your part!

Rockntractor
05-08-2010, 11:04 PM
Another great reply on your part!
Thank you!:)

noonwitch
05-10-2010, 11:13 AM
I'm against the death penalty.


If a state is going to execute murderers, I think the lethal injection is the most humane way to do it. It's the courtesy we give our pets.

Gingersnap
05-10-2010, 11:28 AM
I'm for the death penalty - now more than ever with the advances we've made in forensics along with the ubiquitous presence of security cameras, phone cams, etc.

Public executions were eventually stopped in almost all places because they necessarily became festivals. There was no dignified witnessing of a wrong-doer repaying society for the harm he or she had done. It was a drunken street party. That's just human nature. People committed crimes during public executions that were capital crimes back when pilfering a few coins could lead to a death sentence.

There is no reason to restart the execution party-machine today.

Unlike CIIM, I have no objection to lethal injection (or a firing squad for the LDS). The purpose of the death penalty is to rid society of members who are too dangerous and too incorrigible to leave alive. The DP removes these people and relieves society of the burden of caring for them. I have no interest in torturing the condemned.

FlaGator
05-10-2010, 12:27 PM
I believe that people should be stripped nakes, staked to the ground and eaten alive by fire ants.

I'm just sayin...

Wei Wu Wei
05-10-2010, 12:50 PM
The countless appeals are expensive, the argument that the state has the right to kill citizens when they are not an immediate threat is a shaky one, and the argument about deterrents is poor.

There is little evidence that the DP actually deters crime. Just look at crime rates in states with/without the DP, and compare within states when they have switched from one position to the other.

There are psychological factors involved in this, the DP is not a good deterrent.

The only reason I can see is for revenge, for the sense of justice people apparently get from watching a caged human being die. I'm generally not a fan of the death penalty, but when someone like Tim McVeigh or Saddam Hussein get executed I'm sure not out protesting.

FlaGator
05-10-2010, 12:56 PM
The countless appeals are expensive, the argument that the state has the right to kill citizens when they are not an immediate threat is a shaky one, and the argument about deterrents is poor.

There is little evidence that the DP actually deters crime. Just look at crime rates in states with/without the DP, and compare within states when they have switched from one position to the other.

There are psychological factors involved in this, the DP is not a good deterrent.

The only reason I can see is for revenge, for the sense of justice people apparently get from watching a caged human being die. I'm generally not a fan of the death penalty, but when someone like Tim McVeigh or Saddam Hussein get executed I'm sure not out protesting.

I have never viewed the death penalty as a deterrent other than deterring the individual who was convicted and sentenced. Punishment is the purpose I see for the death penalty. No criminal sentence is truly a deterrent for one possessing a criminal mindset. They don't even think in those terms. Criminal penalties should be mainly about punishment and if the punishment by some odd chance happens to become a deterrent to some people then so much the better.

PoliCon
05-10-2010, 01:00 PM
I'm against the death penalty.


If a state is going to execute murderers, I think the lethal injection is the most humane way to do it. It's the courtesy we give our pets.


and it's asinine on both levels. People need to stop being such royal pansies. Suffering is not a dirty word. So it hurts a little. Big deal. Did the asshole murderer have the same thoughts for the people he murdered? Odds are - NO. Odds are that the murder went out of their way to inflict pain. As for pets - THEY'RE NOT HUMAN BEINGS PEOPLE. Stop treating them as such. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
05-10-2010, 01:01 PM
The countless appeals are expensive, the argument that the state has the right to kill citizens when they are not an immediate threat is a shaky one, and the argument about deterrents is poor.

There is little evidence that the DP actually deters crime. Just look at crime rates in states with/without the DP, and compare within states when they have switched from one position to the other.

There are psychological factors involved in this, the DP is not a good deterrent.

The only reason I can see is for revenge, for the sense of justice people apparently get from watching a caged human being die. I'm generally not a fan of the death penalty, but when someone like Tim McVeigh or Saddam Hussein get executed I'm sure not out protesting.

Would you please do the world a favor and go practice the death penalty on yourself? :rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
05-10-2010, 01:01 PM
The problem with the DP as punishment is that you are giving the State the sole authority to take one's life as a punishment.

Religious-based arguments against this is that a human life possesses infinite value, and that there is no crime or action that a person can do, however disgusting it is, that can equal or surpass the value of his own life. The idea behind our punishments is that you pay a punishment relative to your crime, but because no one can commit an infinite crime, no one can receive an infinite punishment (on earth), and no entity has the authority to give out an infinite punishment other than God.

A secular argument is the fallability of the system. Unless and until we can ensure no innocent people get executed, death penalty should not be used.

PoliCon
05-10-2010, 01:03 PM
You need to stop trying to make arguments for positions you frankly do not at all comprehend. BETTER STILL - just shut the fuck up and go the fuck away you fucking fuck of a fucktard.

Wei Wu Wei
05-10-2010, 01:04 PM
You need to stop trying to make arguments for positions you frankly do not at all comprehend. BETTER STILL - just shut the fuck up and go the fuck away you fucking fuck of a fucktard.

coming from a guy who's strongest arguments to date are:

"NO U!"

"YOU LIE!"

AND "FUCKYOU!!!@"

FeebMaster
05-10-2010, 01:06 PM
I don't think governments are trustworthy enough to have the power to execute people.

PoliCon
05-10-2010, 01:08 PM
coming from a guy who's strongest arguments to date are:

"NO U!"

"YOU LIE!"

AND "FUCKYOU!!!@"

Why make a more complex argument when the basics work - and be true as well.

Chuck58
05-10-2010, 02:55 PM
I favor the death penalty. I also think the execution should fit the crime.

Mode of execution for the worst offenses: There's nothing like a good crucifixion, done in an open place for all to see.

For lesser death penalties, slow strangulation also done in public view.

FlaGator
05-10-2010, 03:01 PM
The problem with the DP as punishment is that you are giving the State the sole authority to take one's life as a punishment.

Religious-based arguments against this is that a human life possesses infinite value, and that there is no crime or action that a person can do, however disgusting it is, that can equal or surpass the value of his own life. The idea behind our punishments is that you pay a punishment relative to your crime, but because no one can commit an infinite crime, no one can receive an infinite punishment (on earth), and no entity has the authority to give out an infinite punishment other than God.

A secular argument is the fallability of the system. Unless and until we can ensure no innocent people get executed, death penalty should not be used.

To face the facts here, man is imperfect and fallible, but from a Christian perspective, God has granted the right to take a life to the state as is clearly stated in Paul's epistle to the Romans. You must remember that in the Christian religion physical death is not the end and is separate from spiritual death. To end a physical life doesn't not end the spiritual existence. There are some human behaviors that I believe that a person can engage in that are cause to take their physical life. Their spiritual existence passes in to the hands of God who will judge him or her righteously.

I personally believe in a very limited use of the death penalty in some very specific types of crimes. Crimes that I believe one automatically forfeits his life if he or she commits them.

Articulate_Ape
05-10-2010, 03:06 PM
Swiftly, that is, not allowing them to live for a decades or decades longer than they should've on death row, and also they should punished fitting with the crime they committed. For arguments' sake, let's limit the death penalty to those who murder--different crimes which lead to murder would merit different means of execution. This may sound brutal but for example let's say for example we have a convicted child rapist and murderer---He should suffer in the same way his victim did, before he dies. Throw him in with other sex offenders maybe; He'll have lots of fun being the rape victim now.

Why should a monster who tortures or mutilates others before they die be allowed a quick painless needle in the arm? There's three main arguments for the death penalty--Deterrence, Revenge and Practicality. If we go by the detterence argument, as I said, a painless needle in the arm doesn't really sound too intimidating. As for the revenge argument, again does killing a person who tortured or raped his victim before murdering them painlessly sound just? As for practicality, it's why i support the death penalty.


In terms of the lingering, it is called due process, CITM. As for the rationale for the death penalty? Practicality (i.e. the detergent effect) is the only correct one in my mind.

Rebel Yell
05-10-2010, 03:36 PM
There's no excuse for a man convicted of murder in his 30's to die of old age on death row.

Articulate_Ape
05-10-2010, 03:47 PM
There's no excuse for a man convicted of murder in his 30's to die of old age on death row.

No excuse but due process. I'm not saying I agree with it, but if it is to change, the laws need to be changed.

Chuck58
05-10-2010, 04:42 PM
Due process, appeal after appeal after appeal, is a lawyer's gimmick to make lawyers more money. It costs us, the taxpayers, a fortune to get a guy to the chair. The laws were put in effect so the lawyers could make more bucks from us.

Found guilty, one single appeal and then off with his head.

Better would be, found guilty on Saturday hanged at dawn on Sunday.

PoliCon
05-10-2010, 05:01 PM
Due process, appeal after appeal after appeal, is a lawyer's gimmick to make lawyers more money. It costs us, the taxpayers, a fortune to get a guy to the chair. The laws were put in effect so the lawyers could make more bucks from us.

Found guilty, one single appeal and then off with his head.

Better would be, found guilty on Saturday hanged at dawn on Sunday. I'm willing to let them have appeals up to the top - where the lawyers milk it is with continuances.

FeebMaster
05-10-2010, 05:18 PM
Due process, appeal after appeal after appeal, is a lawyer's gimmick to make lawyers more money. It costs us, the taxpayers, a fortune to get a guy to the chair. The laws were put in effect so the lawyers could make more bucks from us.

Found guilty, one single appeal and then off with his head.

Better would be, found guilty on Saturday hanged at dawn on Sunday.

Yeah. What could go wrong? (http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/201.php)

fettpett
05-10-2010, 05:25 PM
the best way to keep crime down is Concealed and Open Carry of Firearms.

Death Penalty should be used for a limited number of things, Murder, Rape and certain cases of Child molestation. Let them have their appeals, sometimes the person really is innocent which case they should be helped back into society .

frankly couldn't care less about how they implement it as long as it's not gruesome and dangerous to people around administering it

PoliCon
05-10-2010, 05:27 PM
the best way to keep crime down is Concealed and Open Carry of Firearms.

Death Penalty should be used for a limited number of things, Murder, Rape and certain cases of Child molestation. Let them have their appeals, sometimes the person really is innocent which case they should be helped back into society .

frankly couldn't care less about how they implement it as long as it's not gruesome and dangerous to people around administering it

I agree. Murder, rape, and pedophilia.

BadCat
05-10-2010, 05:37 PM
I think the prescribed manner of execution in this country should return to Olde English tradition of drawing and quartering.

PoliCon
05-10-2010, 05:44 PM
I think the prescribed manner of execution in this country should return to Olde English tradition of drawing and quartering.

Meh. Hanged, castrated, disemboweled, drawn and quartered is so much more poetic.

BadCat
05-10-2010, 05:52 PM
Meh. Hanged, castrated, disemboweled, drawn and quartered is so much more poetic.

The times they threw the intestines on the BBQ while the person was still alive must have been a hoot.

Articulate_Ape
05-10-2010, 06:18 PM
Badcat sure knows how to party.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
05-11-2010, 01:47 AM
Perhaps it's the Italian and Roman ancestry in me, but I fully support the iidea of public executions. The Romans had it right in that regard.

Odysseus
05-11-2010, 06:14 AM
I'm against the death penalty.

If a state is going to execute murderers, I think the lethal injection is the most humane way to do it. It's the courtesy we give our pets.
When a pet dies, it is assumed not to have committed murder.
"Humane" executions flatter the sensibilities of the executor, but accomplish little else.


The countless appeals are expensive, the argument that the state has the right to kill citizens when they are not an immediate threat is a shaky one, and the argument about deterrents is poor.
The argument is not that the state has the right to kill, it is that citizens have delegated the right to extract vengeance to the state for the purpose of maintining public order.


There is little evidence that the DP actually deters crime. Just look at crime rates in states with/without the DP, and compare within states when they have switched from one position to the other.
This is not a fair comparison. There were 14,180 murders in 2008 vs. 37 executions, and the vast majority of those executions were for crimes committed so long ago that the causal relationship is all-but forgotten. Thus, not only is a convicted murderer unlikely to face the death penalty, but those that do face it only do so after decades of appeals. No wonder it's not a deterrent. I propose that we pick one state, and in that state the death penalty should be applied with the following caveates:


All deliberate homicides in the state shall be presumed to warrant the death penalty unless the jury specifically decides otherwise.
The number of appeals will be unlimited, but must be based on evidence that exonerates the condemned or other material facts which put the verdict in doubt. Simple procedural errors that do not impact on the decision of the court shall not be subject to appeal. All appeals must be completed within 12 months of the initial conviction and it is the duty of the courts to provide expedited service in those cases.
Execution shall be public or private, in accordance with the wishes of the victim's next of kin.
Means of execution shall be chosen by the jury at sentencing, not by the condemned.
The condemned's last words shall be recorded prior to entering the place of execution and distributed to the condemned's next of kin. No public statements by the condemned shall be permitted.


Do that for a few years and then tell me what the murder statistics look like.


There are psychological factors involved in this, the DP is not a good deterrent.
On the contrary. The rate of repetition of murder among executed felons is 0%. That strikes me as an extremely effective deterrent.


The only reason I can see is for revenge, for the sense of justice people apparently get from watching a caged human being die. I'm generally not a fan of the death penalty, but when someone like Tim McVeigh or Saddam Hussein get executed I'm sure not out protesting.

The loaded term that you use, "watching a caged human being die," tells us that your sympathies lie with the condemned, rather than their victims. This is pretty common among liberals, who routinely feel the need to prove their moral superiority by sympathizing with monsters and condemning the legitimate feelings of their victims. Those who seek to ban the death penalty are usually people who have nothing to do with the case and have no compelling interest in the execution of justice. The people who hold candlelight vigils for monsters do so, not because they are committed to the value of life, but because they are promoting themselves and making themselves feel good at the expense of those who have been victimized. It is posturing, nothing more.

You clearly aren't looking very hard for reasons. Revenge is hardly the only reason for execution of murderers. The death penalty prevents the condemned from repeating his/her crimes. Now, I'm sure that you're going to argue that life without parole does the same thing, but unfortunately, life witout parole sentences are often commuted, or the sentencing guidelines change and parole goes back on the table. The death penalty results in a 0% rate of repetition. And a death sentence, swiftly applied, is a deterrent. What is not a deterrent is decades of appeals that drag the familes of crime victims through the ordeal over and over again.

wilbur
05-11-2010, 08:09 AM
I actually agree with the the late Pope on this one:



In Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II suggested that capital punishment should be avoided unless it is the only way to defend society from the offender in question, opining that punishment "ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent."


So, in a place like the US, we probably don't have any good justifying reason to use it, ever.

And of course, if there was a necessity to execute, it should be done quietly and humanely - any justice system which takes vengeance and retribution (ie, punishment, for the sake of punishment) as foundational principles, should not have the world "justice" in it's name at all.

Sonnabend
05-11-2010, 08:20 AM
Go lecture these people (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html)

Good luck convincing Malaysia or China. Or Japan (a nation far older than the US...the DP has been part of their culture for the last I don't know...thousand years or so.

Aust is looking at reintroducing the death penalty and I'd vote for it in a microsecond,

Seeing a child molestor taken out and shot at dawn works for me.


So, in a place like the US, we probably don't have any good justifying reason to use it, ever.

There are plenty of reasons to justify its use, plenty of reasons to keep it, and may I remind you wilbur, though you and your ilk would like to see democracy put to one side in the name of Mother Gaia, may I remind you that the DP exists from the will of the people?

That states with the DP repeatedly re elect those who support it? That's democracy. That's law by the consent of the governed. Sorry you dont like it.

Space Gravy
05-11-2010, 09:11 AM
Yeah. What could go wrong? (http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/201.php)

It seems like a useful tool in getting cases solved. I've heard more than once where someone went ahead and signed a confession under terms that the death penalty wouldn't be considered during sentencing rather than go to trial.

My only concern with the death penalty is it needs to be a 100% no doubter. I know DNA and forensics are getting better but witnesses & prosecutors can lie and juries can get it wrong.

Jfor
05-11-2010, 11:08 AM
I actually agree with the the late Pope on this one:



So, in a place like the US, we probably don't have any good justifying reason to use it, ever.

And of course, if there was a necessity to execute, it should be done quietly and humanely - any justice system which takes vengeance and retribution (ie, punishment, for the sake of punishment) as foundational principles, should not have the world "justice" in it's name at all.

Once again showing the world how stupid you really are.

noonwitch
05-11-2010, 11:11 AM
and it's asinine on both levels. People need to stop being such royal pansies. Suffering is not a dirty word. So it hurts a little. Big deal. Did the asshole murderer have the same thoughts for the people he murdered? Odds are - NO. Odds are that the murder went out of their way to inflict pain. As for pets - THEY'RE NOT HUMAN BEINGS PEOPLE. Stop treating them as such. :rolleyes:



We, as the People, are better than that asshole murderer. We hold ourselves to a higher standard.

NJCardFan
05-11-2010, 11:18 AM
I always love the argument that the DP isn't a deterrent so it shouldn't be used. The statement is such bullshit that it isn't funny. Using that logic, we should have prisons either because prison sure as hell isn't a deterrent. If it were, the recidivism rate wouldn't be as high as it is. And the DP was never meant to dissuade others. It was meant to punish the accused.

PoliCon
05-11-2010, 11:56 AM
We, as the People, are better than that asshole murderer. We hold ourselves to a higher standard.

And that's fine. Hanging does the job just fine and it's cheap and effective.

Odysseus
05-11-2010, 11:57 AM
I actually agree with the the late Pope on this one:
So, in a place like the US, we probably don't have any good justifying reason to use it, ever.
You've obviously never spent an afternoon looking for the body of a murdered child.

And of course, if there was a necessity to execute, it should be done quietly and humanely - any justice system which takes vengeance and retribution (ie, punishment, for the sake of punishment) as foundational principles, should not have the world "justice" in it's name at all.
But all punishment is retribution. Retribution is defined as:

1 : recompense, reward
2 : the dispensing or receiving of reward or punishment especially in the hereafter
3 : something given or exacted in recompense
Punishment that isn't given or exacted in response to a crime, i.e., retribution, isn't punishment, it's abuse. It is done in response to a criminal act and is therefore not "punishment for the sake of punishment." Punitive measures can include removal from society, either temporarily or permanent, fines and restitution. The restitution demanded of a murderer is his/life for the life (lives) taken. Doing it "humanely" and "quietly" may satisfy your exquisitely merciful sensitivities, but it defeats the purpose. Execution should be unpleasant for the condemned and it should be public, as a deterrent and so that innocent people will see that they are protected.

BTW, I find it odd that anyone who is pro-choice or pro-euthanasia would be opposed to the death penalty. I'm not saying that you hold those positions, just that I find a contradiction that people who support terminating innocent life have qualms about doing it to the guilty.

It seems like a useful tool in getting cases solved. I've heard more than once where someone went ahead and signed a confession under terms that the death penalty wouldn't be considered during sentencing rather than go to trial.

My only concern with the death penalty is it needs to be a 100% no doubter. I know DNA and forensics are getting better but witnesses & prosecutors can lie and juries can get it wrong.
The standard for conviction in most criminal cases is that guilt be established "beyond a reasonable doubt." In capital cases, the standard must be beyond any doubt, but that is for the jury to decide, and that is why the sentencing phase must be unanimous.

We, as the People, are better than that asshole murderer. We hold ourselves to a higher standard.
Which is why we give due process to the murderer, establish his/her guilt, and comply with our laws to remove the murderer from our society. Law-abiding citizens are, by definition, superior to murderers. We don't need to withhold punishment in order to prove it to ourselves, and we should not care about proving it to the murderer.

fettpett
05-11-2010, 12:39 PM
I actually agree with the the late Pope on this one:



So, in a place like the US, we probably don't have any good justifying reason to use it, ever.

And of course, if there was a necessity to execute, it should be done quietly and humanely - any justice system which takes vengeance and retribution (ie, punishment, for the sake of punishment) as foundational principles, should not have the world "justice" in it's name at all.

yeah...the Vatican has such a great stance on Capital Punishment....The same Church that says that the Inquisition and such were legitimate use of Papal authority and have stood by the historical use of such campaigns against anyone that spoke out against the Church. They haven't soften their stance at all against the use of the Death Penalty except where it's politically expedient.

obx
05-12-2010, 10:32 AM
I think all executions should be by hanging and they should be shown live on CSPAN. The rope could be reused a number of times to keep the cost down. The execution should take place within 24 hours of the end of the first (and only) appeal, which takes place no later than 30 days after conviction. There is NO reason a prisoner on death row should die of old age.
________
WINNING (http://winningentrepreneur.com/)

NJCardFan
05-12-2010, 11:04 AM
Here's the deal. There is only one person on these forums who has any dealings with prisons and prison life and that is me. Let me tell you what prison inmates are suffering with:

Cable or satellite television which include movies. Some even have TV's in their cells.
3 meals a day.
Free or extremely low cost medical care.
Free or extremely low cost medication.
Gym access.
Free education.
Access to commissary so they can suffer through prison with potato chips and cookies and such.
Outside food packages.
Phone calls to friends and family.
Visits from friends and family.

All the while the family of the victim get to visit a headstone. Does this sound like justice to you?

asdf2231
05-12-2010, 11:06 AM
I actually agree with the the late Pope on this one:



So, in a place like the US, we probably don't have any good justifying reason to use it, ever.

And of course, if there was a necessity to execute, it should be done quietly and humanely - any justice system which takes vengeance and retribution (ie, punishment, for the sake of punishment) as foundational principles, should not have the world "justice" in it's name at all.

Hey fuck that.

Save up convicted cases and every now and then turn 'em loose in an arena armed with stainless steel Sporks and let them fight.

Winner gets some Arbys, a conjegal visit and gets to live another round. Oh and a slightly larger Spork. Televise it on Pay-Per-View and use the procedes to pay for the rest of the shitheads warehoused in the normal prisons.

wilbur
05-12-2010, 07:32 PM
But all punishment is retribution. Retribution is defined as:

Punishment that isn't given or exacted in response to a crime, i.e., retribution, isn't punishment, it's abuse. It is done in response to a criminal act and is therefore not "punishment for the sake of punishment."


Perhaps it would clear things up if I just was more specific about what I meant. Maybe vengeance is a better word.

If criminals are made to suffer for their crimes, it should be because it furthers all or some of these three ends: deterrence, rehabilitation, or restitution. To the extent that a criminal's suffering furthers some of those ends, then, I would agree, he should be made to suffer accordingly. But if his suffering does not further them, then he should not be made to suffer.

The idea that the infliction of suffering upon a criminal is an end in and of itself, is a misguided one. The same goes for punishment in general. That's the point I was really going for.



Punitive measures can include removal from society, either temporarily or permanent, fines and restitution. The restitution demanded of a murderer is his/life for the life (lives) taken. Doing it "humanely" and "quietly" may satisfy your exquisitely merciful sensitivities, but it defeats the purpose. Execution should be unpleasant for the condemned and it should be public, as a deterrent and so that innocent people will see that they are protected.


If painful, public executions serve as an effective deterrent, than you might have a justifying reason for them, it seems to me.



BTW, I find it odd that anyone who is pro-choice or pro-euthanasia would be opposed to the death penalty. I'm not saying that you hold those positions, just that I find a contradiction that people who support terminating innocent life have qualms about doing it to the guilty.


I do support both those things, but you shouldn't find it odd or contradictory. You may not agree with the positions, but they all can be perfectly consistent with one another.

djones520
05-12-2010, 07:55 PM
The idea that the infliction of suffering upon a criminal is an end in and of itself, is a misguided one.

And that right there is where the inability to come to an agreement occurs.

M21
05-12-2010, 08:42 PM
I don't agree with the death penalty.

I don't think the State should be in the business of killing it's citizens. Humans error. I understand the differenc between innocent life and guilty life but on either side of that argument you have to take the place of a sovereign God and that's not a posiiton I'm going to assume.

Articulate_Ape
05-12-2010, 08:53 PM
If I were king it would go like this:

1. All prison terms consist of hard labor, 8 hours a day, 6 days a week. Period.
2. If you cannot do hard labor for medical reasons, then you work on something else on the same schedule.
3. If you are convicted of a capital crime, you are offered the choice between hard labor (as described above) for the rest of your natural life (no parole) or death by firing squad or hanging (your choice).
4. If you are paroled after a violent crime and re-offend, you get an automatic life sentence (as prescribed above).

People who commit crimes don't fear death as much as they fear work. Work can be worse than death.

PoliCon
05-12-2010, 10:39 PM
I don't agree with the death penalty.

I don't think the State should be in the business of killing it's citizens. Humans error. I understand the differenc between innocent life and guilty life but on either side of that argument you have to take the place of a sovereign God and that's not a posiiton I'm going to assume.

That's interesting because the sovereign God commands the state to execute people guilty of certain crimes. . . . .

Articulate_Ape
05-12-2010, 10:43 PM
That's interesting because the sovereign God commands the state to execute people guilty of certain crimes. . . . .


Including intercourse during menstruation. I'm just sayin'.

PoliCon
05-12-2010, 10:46 PM
Including intercourse during menstruation. I'm just sayin'.

True - but I'm not making the argument that the state should not execute because that's only God's job. :p

Articulate_Ape
05-12-2010, 10:51 PM
True - but I'm not making the argument that the state should not execute because that's only God's job. :p

Ok. What argument are you making exactly?

PoliCon
05-12-2010, 10:57 PM
Ok. What argument are you making exactly?

right now? none. Just poking holes in the argument that the state should not execute. Personally - I'm all for the death penalty in cases of rape, murder, and pedophilia. I think if you kill someone while drunk driving it should be classified as murder. And I agree with you on hard labor for capital crimes.

djones520
05-12-2010, 11:01 PM
right now? none. Just poking holes in the argument that the state should not execute. Personally - I'm all for the death penalty in cases of rape, murder, and pedophilia. I think if you kill someone while drunk driving it should be classified as murder. And I agree with you on hard labor for capital crimes.

I'm not certain I'd agree with drunk driving killings as being classified as 1st or 2nd degree murder. It's generally brought about by poor judgement, coupled with inhibition limiting drugs. Manslaughter sure and a heavy sentence should accompany it, but not intentional murder, not something that warrants execution.

Articulate_Ape
05-12-2010, 11:01 PM
right now? none. Just poking holes in the argument that the state should not execute. Personally - I'm all for the death penalty in cases of rape, murder, and pedophilia. I think if you kill someone while drunk driving it should be classified as murder. And I agree with you on hard labor for capital crimes.

I'll let you live.

M21
05-13-2010, 12:47 AM
That's interesting because the sovereign God commands the state to execute people guilty of certain crimes. . . . .Chapter and verse please?

PoliCon
05-13-2010, 01:08 AM
Chapter and verse please?

Lev 19:20, 20:2, 20:9, 20:10, 20:11, 20:12, 20:13, 20:15, 20:16, 20:27, 24:14, 24:16, 24:17, 24:21, 24:23

Num 1:51, 3:10, 3:38, 14:10, 15:35, 18:7, 35:16, 35:17, 35:18, 35:21, 35:30, 35:31

How's that for a start?

Odysseus
05-13-2010, 02:00 AM
Perhaps it would clear things up if I just was more specific about what I meant. Maybe vengeance is a better word.
Or maybe it isn't. Retribution was the right word. The execution isn't the result of the individual victims demanding vengeance, it is the nation, which has been empowered by all citizens, demanding balance.


If criminals are made to suffer for their crimes, it should be because it furthers all or some of these three ends: deterrence, rehabilitation, or restitution. To the extent that a criminal's suffering furthers some of those ends, then, I would agree, he should be made to suffer accordingly. But if his suffering does not further them, then he should not be made to suffer.

The idea that the infliction of suffering upon a criminal is an end in and of itself, is a misguided one. The same goes for punishment in general. That's the point I was really going for.

If painful, public executions serve as an effective deterrent, than you might have a justifying reason for them, it seems to me.

And I disagree. You keep focusing on the suffering of the criminal, and I submit that you do so because you find it exalting to champion the rights of someone held in contempt by the majority, but there are legitimate reasons for criminals to suffer for their crimes. What you fail to take into account is the concept of evil. You don't really hold criminals responsible for their actions, and therefore see their suffering as something imposed upon them from without, rather than something that they have earned by their actions. A criminal does not suffer only because his victims or their families demand it (although that, too, is part of justice), he suffers because he has done an evil act and deserves it. Those criminals who recognize this and internalize that lesson may be rehabilitated. Those who do not, cannot be, but regardless, it is they who have brought it on themselves, and it is justice that they be made the suffer the consequences of their actions. Those actions which have the most severe consequences being those actions which have the most severe effects, hence the death penalty.

Also, painful public executions do serve as an effective deterrent. Crime rates prior to the abolition of capital punishment were substantially lower than after, and the restoration of capital punishment has been so hamstrung by the process that it's almost as if it hasn't been brought back. To be a deterrent, a criminal must believe that his actions will most likely result in his own death, within a relatively short period of time. If he believes that he has a chance to escape justice, he will make the attempt, but if he knows that he cannot, he will be far less likely to do so.


If I do support both those things, but you shouldn't find it odd or contradictory. You may not agree with the positions, but they all can be perfectly consistent with one another.
I don't see how. I could see being pro-choice, pro-euthanasia and pro-death-penalty (a sort of pro-death trifecta), but I cannot see how you can hold one position and not the others. You object to the taking of the lives of guilty criminals after due process, but you find the taking of an innocent life after no process to be acceptable? That makes no sense to me, unless your argument that advocates of capital punishment prove its utility speaks to a mindset that holds that life is not necessarily sacred, only that it cannot be taken unless there is some perceived public good, such as not having unwanted children or freeing up health care resources, but if so, that's a far more cold-blooded analysis than I would expect from a ompassionate liberal.


I'm not certain I'd agree with drunk driving killings as being classified as 1st or 2nd degree murder. It's generally brought about by poor judgement, coupled with inhibition limiting drugs. Manslaughter sure and a heavy sentence should accompany it, but not intentional murder, not something that warrants execution.

I think that an argument can be made that if someone knows that they are going to have to drive, and they still ingest enough alcohol or drugs that they're driving under the influence, then they are acting, if not with pre-meditation, then certainly with criminal negligence. A person who does so more than once and has gotten caught is certainly aware of the potential consequences. under those circumstances, charges of the homicide can be said to be deliberate (as in deliberately drinking to excess) and should be subject to punishment as a deliberate homicide. I also think that, if a person commits such a crime and then leaves the scene or otherwise tries to hide their involvement, then under that circumstance, they are acting within the legal definition of depraved indifference to human life, which is a potential factor in the determination of the possibility of a capital murder charge.

wilbur
05-13-2010, 02:41 AM
Or maybe it isn't. Retribution was the right word. The execution isn't the result of the individual victims demanding vengeance, it is the nation, which has been empowered by all citizens, demanding balance.


What the heck is this mystical sounding balance you speak of? Suffering is not a fungible resource, and I do not see that there is any "balance" restored to the universe when somebody suffers. Simply to make someone suffer, for its own end, or because "they deserve it" and for no other reason, is basically torture, and nothing more. Needless torture at that.



And I disagree. You keep focusing on the suffering of the criminal, and I submit that you do so because you find it exalting to champion the rights of someone held in contempt by the majority, but there are legitimate reasons for criminals to suffer for their crimes.

Of course there are legitimate reasons from criminals to suffer, and I think criminals should suffer for their crimes, insofar as that suffering contributes to some good end.



What you fail to take into account is the concept of evil. You don't really hold criminals responsible for their actions, and therefore see their suffering as something imposed upon them from without, rather than something that they have earned by their actions.


Well, sort of. They are the most proximate causes of their crimes, and therefore can be named as the cause - even if the things they (or any of us) do arent their fault in the most ultimate sense. They can be punished, because we know such punishments can influence future actions of the criminals and others would-be's. So there are good reasons to hold criminals responsible for their actions.



A criminal does not suffer only because his victims or their families demand it (although that, too, is part of justice), he suffers because he has done an evil act and deserves it. Those criminals who recognize this and internalize that lesson may be rehabilitated. Those who do not, cannot be, but regardless, it is they who have brought it on themselves, and it is justice that they be made the suffer the consequences of their actions. Those actions which have the most severe consequences being those actions which have the most severe effects, hence the death penalty.


What if, sometime in the future, we had the ability to completely rehabilitate any criminal, in a way that was completely pain free, no suffering? Also, lets assume the other items I mentioned (restitution, and deterrence were taken care of as well. Knowing that all these things were taken care of, would you still demand that they suffer as a result of their crime? I don't see how this suffering could be anything but needless, and unjustifiable if inflicted purposefully on another - even a criminal.



Also, painful public executions do serve as an effective deterrent. Crime rates prior to the abolition of capital punishment were substantially lower than after, and the restoration of capital punishment has been so hamstrung by the process that it's almost as if it hasn't been brought back. To be a deterrent, a criminal must believe that his actions will most likely result in his own death, within a relatively short period of time. If he believes that he has a chance to escape justice, he will make the attempt, but if he knows that he cannot, he will be far less likely to do so.


In the case of execution, well... I'm pretty sure its damn near impossible to do it harshly and swiftly enough, in a country with sufficient due process, to be effective. But that might not be the case forever, and my mind is open on the matter.



I don't see how. I could see being pro-choice, pro-euthanasia and pro-death-penalty (a sort of pro-death trifecta), but I cannot see how you can hold one position and not the others. You object to the taking of the lives of guilty criminals after due process, but you find the taking of an innocent life after no process to be acceptable? That makes no sense to me, unless your argument that advocates of capital punishment prove its utility speaks to a mindset that holds that life is not necessarily sacred, only that it cannot be taken unless there is some perceived public good, such as not having unwanted children or freeing up health care resources, but if so, that's a far more cold-blooded analysis than I would expect from a ompassionate liberal.


I'd be pro death penalty in instances where the accused would pose to much of a risk to others, if left alive. But as far as I know, we're pretty good at keeping these people locked up - so I'm generally against it.

As for abortion, well, not sure what to say that I havent said a million times already... but abortion, in my view, does not kill a human person, where as the death penalty does. So there's no inconsistency there. Its really as simple as that.

Rockntractor
05-13-2010, 03:15 AM
What the heck is this mystical sounding balance you speak of? Suffering is not a fungible resource, and I do not see that there is any "balance" restored to the universe when somebody suffers. Simply to make someone suffer, for its own end, or because "they deserve it" and for no other reason, is basically torture, and nothing more. Needless torture at that.



Of course there are legitimate reasons from criminals to suffer, and I think criminals should suffer for their crimes, insofar as that suffering contributes to some good end.



Well, sort of. They are the most proximate causes of their crimes, and therefore can be named as the cause - even if the things they (or any of us) do arent their fault in the most ultimate sense. They can be punished, because we know such punishments can influence future actions of the criminals and others would-be's. So there are good reasons to hold criminals responsible for their actions.



What if, sometime in the future, we had the ability to completely rehabilitate any criminal, in a way that was completely pain free, no suffering? Also, lets assume the other items I mentioned (restitution, and deterrence were taken care of as well. Knowing that all these things were taken care of, would you still demand that they suffer as a result of their crime? I don't see how this suffering could be anything but needless, and unjustifiable if inflicted purposefully on another - even a criminal.



In the case of execution, well... I'm pretty sure its damn near impossible to do it harshly and swiftly enough, in a country with sufficient due process, to be effective. But that might not be the case forever, and my mind is open on the matter.



I'd be pro death penalty in instances where the accused would pose to much of a risk to others, if left alive. But as far as I know, we're pretty good at keeping these people locked up - so I'm generally against it.

As for abortion, well, not sure what to say that I havent said a million times already... but abortion, in my view, does not kill a human person, where as the death penalty does. So there's no inconsistency there. Its really as simple as that.
It is needless suffering and torture to read your posts Wilbur. :rolleyes:

lacarnut
05-13-2010, 04:05 AM
It is needless suffering and torture to read your posts Wilbur. :rolleyes:

I second that!

Sonnabend
05-13-2010, 07:12 AM
My idea for execution is well known...the flying lesson. Take them up in a Hercules to 6000 feet and thrown them out the back.

All they have to do in the way down is learn to fly.:o

Odysseus
05-13-2010, 08:02 AM
What the heck is this mystical sounding balance you speak of? Suffering is not a fungible resource, and I do not see that there is any "balance" restored to the universe when somebody suffers. Simply to make someone suffer, for its own end, or because "they deserve it" and for no other reason, is basically torture, and nothing more. Needless torture at that.

Yes, because they deserve it. Because the person who murders with callous disregard for human life deserves to be on the receiving end of what he has subjected others to. Why can you not grasp this basic fact?


Of course there are legitimate reasons from criminals to suffer, and I think criminals should suffer for their crimes, insofar as that suffering contributes to some good end.

You take a utilitarian view, but in fact, the good end in captial punishment is the elimination of the criminal.


Well, sort of. They are the most proximate causes of their crimes, and therefore can be named as the cause - even if the things they (or any of us) do arent their fault in the most ultimate sense. They can be punished, because we know such punishments can influence future actions of the criminals and others would-be's. So there are good reasons to hold criminals responsible for their actions.

Then whose fault are they? Who is to blame for the child molester who leaves his victim in a shallow grave after abusing him/her? Who is to blame for the maniac who shoots up his workplace or the cop-killer who orders his victim to the ground and then pumps bullets into him?


What if, sometime in the future, we had the ability to completely rehabilitate any criminal, in a way that was completely pain free, no suffering? Also, lets assume the other items I mentioned (restitution, and deterrence were taken care of as well. Knowing that all these things were taken care of, would you still demand that they suffer as a result of their crime? I don't see how this suffering could be anything but needless, and unjustifiable if inflicted purposefully on another - even a criminal.

You've got a real knack for irrelevent asides, don't you, especially when you are losing an argument? A technology that can reprogram people at will may be nice fodder for a TV series (especially if it stars Eliza Dushku), but we're discussing actual policies that are possible in the here and now, not science fiction hypotheticals. We don't have that capacity and it's unlikely that we ever will (and even if we did, the same people who are arguing against capital punishment would be apalled at the idea of rewriting the minds of criminals). Nice try, but let's keep the subject grounded in reality.


In the case of execution, well... I'm pretty sure its damn near impossible to do it harshly and swiftly enough, in a country with sufficient due process, to be effective. But that might not be the case forever, and my mind is open on the matter.

Let's take an actual example (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1516.html).


On the evening of February 15, 1933, President-elect Franklin Roosevelt delivered a short speech to a crowd at Maimiís Bayfront Park. Because of his disability, Roosevelt often spoke from the rear seat of an open touring car rather than making the arduous trip to a platform. When he finished his remarks, the crowd surged forward, but was halted abruptly by six pistol shots fired in rapid succession.

Five people were hit. The most seriously injured was Chicago Mayor Anton J. Cermak, who sustained a stomach wound. The crowd quickly restrained the assailant, but was prevented from doing him bodily harm by Rooseveltís intercession. Cermak was loaded into the car and comforted on the ride to the hospital by the president-elect. Medical staff credited Roosevelt with preventing the mayor from going into shock, thus giving him a better chance at recovery.

Giuseppe Zangara was the attempted assassin. He was born in Italy, came to the United States in the early 1920s, became a citizen and in 1933 was working as a bricklayer in Miami. Zangara subscribed to no political philosophy, but harbored a hatred for wealthy capitalists. He had blamed Hoover, and later Roosevelt, for the plight of the common man. Probably more important than any political view was the fact that Zangara suffered from chronic and debilitating stomach pain that put him at odds with those around him. In his own words: ďI donít like no peoples.Ē

Zangara was quickly tried and convicted on charges of assault with the intent to kill; he was sentenced to 80 years in prison. However, on March 6, Mayor Cermak died after lingering for three weeks. Zangara was hastily retried and convicted on murder charges; he insisted on pleading guilty despite the belief of some that doctors had misdiagnosed Cermakís condition and contributed to his death. On March 5, only five weeks after the attempted assassination, Zangara died in the electric chair in the state prison at Railford.
As the article stated, Zangara was executed five weeks after the murder. What due process did he lack?


I'd be pro death penalty in instances where the accused would pose to much of a risk to others, if left alive. But as far as I know, we're pretty good at keeping these people locked up - so I'm generally against it.

Fallen into my fiendish trap, you have. :D

First, they aren't that good at keeping prisoners locked up. In 1998, the most recent year for which data are available from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 6,530 people escaped or were AWOL from state prisons.

Second, there is an area where even incarcerated inmates pose a danger to others, and that is prison. It's also one area where the presence of capital punishment has demonstrated a deterrent. When the Supreme Court banned capital punishment, murder rates for inmates increased to 80 per 100,000 in 1980 (the reversal of the ban occurred in 1979, and it took a few years for the states to react with legislation). By 2002, more than 20 years after the return of death row, inmate on inmate homicides declined to 4 per 100,000, an astonishing drop.


As for abortion, well, not sure what to say that I havent said a million times already... but abortion, in my view, does not kill a human person, where as the death penalty does. So there's no inconsistency there. Its really as simple as that.
There are many homicides over the course of history in which the perpetrators or their enablers did not, in their view, kill human beings. I would cite the Holocaust as a prime example, but I don't like to trivialize it. Instead, I will ask you when a fetus becomes a human being. Is it at 8 weeks, when he/she can kick and straighten his legs, and move his arms up and down?
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/4d-ultrasound-pictures/images/photo1.jpg
No? How about at eleven weeks, when their brains have sufficient development that they can feel their bodies, and begin to suck at their thumbs or toes?
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/4d-ultrasound-pictures/images/photo9.jpg
What? Still no? Certainly, by 24 weeks, after retinal development is complete, and babies open and close their eyes:
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/4d-ultrasound-pictures/images/photo6.jpg

Say what you will about abortion, but your view, that it is not a human being, doesn't survive the photographic evidence.

M21
05-13-2010, 01:41 PM
Lev 19:20, 20:2, 20:9, 20:10, 20:11, 20:12, 20:13, 20:15, 20:16, 20:27, 24:14, 24:16, 24:17, 24:21, 24:23

Num 1:51, 3:10, 3:38, 14:10, 15:35, 18:7, 35:16, 35:17, 35:18, 35:21, 35:30, 35:31

How's that for a start?

Since I live under the NEW covenant rather than the old I'm not sure how these old testament scriptures are relevant to the conversation.

I know that you aren't expecting to be judged on your ability to keep ALL of God's laws.

Here is the point; By Gods decrees these guilty are condemned already and will face eternal judgment from their creator. The time they are warehoused here by us is less than the blink of an eye when measured against eternity.

God created them and he will judge and punish them as HE sees fit. The classic problem of the Arminian is that they think that God "needs" them to get his work done and set themselves up as sovereigns sharing God's throne. They think much more highly of themselves than they ought. Vegence is the Lord's and his alone.

I think that you believe, as I do, that God and only God will set ALL accounts straight in the end. I am not going to chance being responsible to God for the "shedding of innocent blood" when there are other alternatives.

Remember the Apostle Paul stood by, watched Stephen stoned to death, and thought he was doing the Godís work according to the law.

FlaGator
05-13-2010, 02:18 PM
Since I live under the NEW covenant rather than the old I'm not sure how these old testament scriptures are relevant to the conversation.

I know that you aren't expecting to be judged on your ability to keep ALL of God's laws.

Here is the point; By Gods decrees these guilty are condemned already and will face eternal judgment from their creator. The time they are warehoused here by us is less than the blink of an eye when measured against eternity.

God created them and he will judge and punish them as HE sees fit. The classic problem of the Arminian is that they think that God "needs" them to get his work done and set themselves up as sovereigns sharing God's throne. They think much more highly of themselves than they ought. Vegence is the Lord's and his alone.

I think that you believe, as I do, that God and only God will set ALL accounts straight in the end. I am not going to chance being responsible to God for the "shedding of innocent blood" when there are other alternatives.

Remember the Apostle Paul stood by, watched Stephen stoned to death, and thought he was doing the God’s work according to the law.

Christ only set aside the dietary laws and the laws that set the Hebrews apart as a people. The sacrificial laws were no longer valid because Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice. The moral laws, however, are still in tact. With that said, there is no requirement that society implement the ultimate penalty for disobeying the law. Jesus spoke often of mercy.

Matthew 5:7 Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.

Matthew 9:13 Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners."

and more to the point there is this

Jone 8:3-11


The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?" This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more."


Although the moral laws still stands, I believe that Christ is showing us the hypocrisy of being strict with the application of the God's law when we are ourselves are in need of mercy from God's law. As Paul pointed out by quoting the Psalms,


"None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."
Romans 3:10b-12

fettpett
05-13-2010, 06:18 PM
Christ only set aside the dietary laws and the laws that set the Hebrews apart as a people. The sacrificial laws were no longer valid because Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice. The moral laws, however, are still in tact. With that said, there is no requirement that society implement the ultimate penalty for disobeying the law. Jesus spoke often of mercy.

Matthew 5:7 Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.

Matthew 9:13 Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners."

and more to the point there is this

Jone 8:3-11


Although the moral laws still stands, I believe that Christ is showing us the hypocrisy of being strict with the application of the God's law when we are ourselves are in need of mercy from God's law. As Paul pointed out by quoting the Psalms,


Romans 3:10b-12


um...no, Peter's dream wasn't about diet, it was about going to the Gentiles or "unclean" people and giving them the Gospel. If this was the case, along with the Sabbath, Acts would have been full of debate about the topic as it was about whether or not people should be circumcised or not.

PoliCon
05-14-2010, 01:07 AM
Since I live under the NEW covenant rather than the old I'm not sure how these old testament scriptures are relevant to the conversation. Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Has all been fulfilled? Has heaven and earth passed? The new covenant does not undo or replace the old - it fulfills it.


I know that you aren't expecting to be judged on your ability to keep ALL of God's laws. Never made that claim.


Here is the point; By Gods decrees these guilty are condemned already and will face eternal judgment from their creator. The time they are warehoused here by us is less than the blink of an eye when measured against eternity. God also decreed that those who commit certain crimes should not be suffered to live and need to be put to death.


God created them and he will judge and punish them as HE sees fit. The classic problem of the Arminian is that they think that God "needs" them to get his work done and set themselves up as sovereigns sharing God's throne. They think much more highly of themselves than they ought. Vegence is the Lord's and his alone. If **I** act alone to try and bring God's justice - you might have a point. But I never said that. I said that God commands the STATE to act in that capacity. The state can be impartial. The state can be dispassionate. The state is to be just.


I think that you believe, as I do, that God and only God will set ALL accounts straight in the end. I am not going to chance being responsible to God for the "shedding of innocent blood" when there are other alternatives.You making the same mistake that lefties do - your confusing the role of the individual and the role of the state. You have to approach each differently. What is not allowable for me as an individual is REQUIRED of the state. What is required of me as an individual is not to schluffed off onto the state.


Remember the Apostle Paul stood by, watched Stephen stoned to death, and thought he was doing the Godís work according to the law. Very true. but that was the action of individuals not the state. Paul and is compatriots were taking the law into their own hands.

PoliCon
05-14-2010, 01:10 AM
The sacrificial laws were no longer valid WHAO - completely wrong term. They are still 100% valid. They have been fulfilled. You still need a blood sacrifice for forgiveness of sins. Christ now fills that requirement - but it is still a requirement.

FlaGator
05-14-2010, 08:07 AM
um...no, Peter's dream wasn't about diet, it was about going to the Gentiles or "unclean" people and giving them the Gospel. If this was the case, along with the Sabbath, Acts would have been full of debate about the topic as it was about whether or not people should be circumcised or not.


I wasn't referring to Peter's dream alone. I was also referencing

Matthew 15:16-20

"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. "Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "

That taking in context with Acts 10:9-16 speaks to the dietary laws as well as the gentiles being made clean as they were (without circumcision).

FlaGator
05-14-2010, 08:09 AM
WHAO - completely wrong term. They are still 100% valid. They have been fulfilled. You still need a blood sacrifice for forgiveness of sins. Christ now fills that requirement - but it is still a requirement.

Thank you... I used invalid to mean no longer necessary because they were fulfilled in Christ. I see your point and say thank you for the correction.

FlaGator
05-14-2010, 08:26 AM
um...no, Peter's dream wasn't about diet, it was about going to the Gentiles or "unclean" people and giving them the Gospel. If this was the case, along with the Sabbath, Acts would have been full of debate about the topic as it was about whether or not people should be circumcised or not.

I have been thinking about his and I came to the conclusion that I have misunderstood things. I connected passages that were only marginally related. Like circumcision not applying to the Gentiles, neither do the dietary laws (for the same reason) but the dietary laws are still valid within the Jewish and Messianic Jewish beliefs.

Thank you for clarifying this for me.

wilbur
05-14-2010, 01:51 PM
Yes, because they deserve it. Because the person who murders with callous disregard for human life deserves to be on the receiving end of what he has subjected others to. Why can you not grasp this basic fact?

You take a utilitarian view, but in fact, the good end in captial punishment is the elimination of the criminal.

Then whose fault are they? Who is to blame for the child molester who leaves his victim in a shallow grave after abusing him/her? Who is to blame for the maniac who shoots up his workplace or the cop-killer who orders his victim to the ground and then pumps bullets into him?

You've got a real knack for irrelevent asides, don't you, especially when you are losing an argument? A technology that can reprogram people at will may be nice fodder for a TV series (especially if it stars Eliza Dushku), but we're discussing actual policies that are possible in the here and now, not science fiction hypothetical. We don't have that capacity and it's unlikely that we ever will (and even if we did, the same people who are arguing against capital punishment would be apalled at the idea of rewriting the minds of criminals). Nice try, but let's keep the subject grounded in reality.


Don't be so quick to dismiss thought experiments simply because you think the situations are unlikely. Theories of morality and justice often live or die based upon them, and they can be far more fanciful than the rather mild one I proposed above - and they are discussed and taken seriously by professional philosophers of all stripes. Should a theory of morality or justice produce some sort of obviously wrong result in a hypothetical situation, they are often considered falsified. So far from being an irrelevant aside, these sorts of things are key in teasing the consequences of our beliefs, and discovering just how solid their footing really is. That is not to say all thought experiments should be taken seriously, but you certainly don't just get to dismiss anyone as irrelevant, out of hand.

And I'm quite certain, that it would be the person who dismissed and refused to answer a reasonable thought experiment, who would be "losing the argument".

If we find ourselves, one day, able to satisfy all the conditions that I believe justice is supposed to serve, without the need for punishment as we think of it today (ie. mainly the infliction of suffering upon the criminal), then it would be wrong and unnecessary. In other words, if it was in our capacity to be able to deter further crime, prevent future crimes by the same individual, make sure the victims are properly compensated, etc, then the infliction of suffering upon the criminal in question, is an immoral act of torture. His suffering would achieve no good end, nor would it restore any "balance". By any realistic meaning of the word, "balance" has already been restored. There would be no justifiable reason for the suffering.

You wrote that, in the case of the death penalty, "elimination of the criminal" is the deserved end. Presumably, you believe this end provides solid justification for the punishment. Well, in my hypothetical, the criminal is essentially eliminated, though not through death, but through rehabilitation. So, if you agree that there should be a death penalty in this possible world, where my hypothetical is reality, then you must provide an additional justification for why you think so, because it appears unnecessary.

What that thought experiment tells me about this world, is that the death penalty might only be justified, because we lack the power to rehabilitate criminals effectively, but that its not a per se good, as you seem to suggest it is.



As the article stated, Zangara was executed five weeks after the murder. What due process did he lack?

Fallen into my fiendish trap, you have. :D

First, they aren't that good at keeping prisoners locked up. In 1998, the most recent year for which data are available from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 6,530 people escaped or were AWOL from state prisons.

Second, there is an area where even incarcerated inmates pose a danger to others, and that is prison. It's also one area where the presence of capital punishment has demonstrated a deterrent. When the Supreme Court banned capital punishment, murder rates for inmates increased to 80 per 100,000 in 1980 (the reversal of the ban occurred in 1979, and it took a few years for the states to react with legislation). By 2002, more than 20 years after the return of death row, inmate on inmate homicides declined to 4 per 100,000, an astonishing drop.


Again, I already conceded that deterrence might be a sufficient reason to consider a death penalty. I'd also be willing to retract if shown conclusively that our prisons couldn't keep our most serious offenders securely stashed. But on the other hand, I'd still pretty sceptical that the death penalty would be the *only* practical reform that could have similar results.



There are many homicides over the course of history in which the perpetrators or their enablers did not, in their view, kill human beings. I would cite the Holocaust as a prime example, but I don't like to trivialize it. Instead, I will ask you when a fetus becomes a human being. Is it at 8 weeks, when he/she can kick and straighten his legs, and move his arms up and down?


Well, we can debate those issues if you want, but the issue you raised was consistency. Do you now at least recognize the basic fact of the matter, that pro-choice and anti-death penalty positions can be compatible? I know we've had many abortion conversations before, so it seems like this should be common knowledge by know, but I've always maintained that abortion is only safely permissible up to about 20 weeks into pregnancy


Say what you will about abortion, but your view, that it is not a human being, doesn't survive the photographic evidence.

Of course it does - what you think us pro-choicers haven't ever seen these sorts of photos, or things like the infamous "silent scream" video? The impact that such photos are intended to have is only effective on those who, either through ignorance or willing self-deception, decide to play along in a little charade of falsely personifying a mindless organism. The fetus has its leg "stretched", therefore its stretching its leg like you or I! Maybe it has a cramp, it's really tight quarters in there! Oh look! Its thumb is near its face, so it must be sucking its thumb, like a little person! Oh no its "screaming"! It must be in pain! None of those things are true.

A fetus could look like the cutest, most cuddliest thing on the planet, or mimic any gesture, but it wouldn't change the fact that it is, quite literally, a brainless organism, incapable of any thought, feeling, or desire. So trot out all the photo's you like, it doesn't make me un-know the facts of the matter.

BTW, no fetus anywhere is feeling anything at 11 weeks.

noonwitch
05-14-2010, 03:50 PM
I have been thinking about his and I came to the conclusion that I have misunderstood things. I connected passages that were only marginally related. Like circumcision not applying to the Gentiles, neither do the dietary laws (for the same reason) but the dietary laws are still valid within the Jewish and Messianic Jewish beliefs.

Thank you for clarifying this for me.



I know you read Justification, which dealt in depth with that very subject!

My view is that Peter's dream about the net filled with non-kosher animals, and the voice telling him to "kill and eat" was not about food, but about the inclusion of gentiles in the family of God. Paul put it all differently, but his whole point was that God planned to redeem the gentiles all along, through the jewish people, but that God didn't require the Gentiles to become jews prior to becoming christians.

fettpett
05-14-2010, 08:29 PM
I have been thinking about his and I came to the conclusion that I have misunderstood things. I connected passages that were only marginally related. Like circumcision not applying to the Gentiles, neither do the dietary laws (for the same reason) but the dietary laws are still valid within the Jewish and Messianic Jewish beliefs.

Thank you for clarifying this for me.


I know you read Justification, which dealt in depth with that very subject!

My view is that Peter's dream about the net filled with non-kosher animals, and the voice telling him to "kill and eat" was not about food, but about the inclusion of gentiles in the family of God. Paul put it all differently, but his whole point was that God planned to redeem the gentiles all along, through the jewish people, but that God didn't require the Gentiles to become jews prior to becoming christians.


Yep, God was telling Peter that he was wrong on keeping the Gosple form the Gentiles. Remember Peter was in the house of a Roman when he was given the dream about the animals. Immediately after waking he goes and preaches to the Roman and converts the entire family. The reason for this dream was that he and Paul had been having a very big disagreement on this issue.

I'll agree with the circumcision because that was a convent specifically with Abraham and his descendants (and anyone that converted). But the dietary stuff went back much further, too Noah and Adam. One common misconception is that there were only 2 of each animal that went into the Ark. That wasn't true, there were 2 unclean and 7 clean. they needed food (the first time God gave permission to eat meat is after the flood) and for sacrifice, and if they ate and used unclean animals they would have gone extinct. So if this was given to Noah, then it's not just a Jewish law

Sonnabend
05-14-2010, 10:20 PM
A fetus could look like the cutest, most cuddliest thing on the planet, or mimic any gesture, but it wouldn't change the fact that it is, quite literally, a brainless organism, incapable of any thought, feeling, or desire. So trot out all the photo's you like, it doesn't make me un-know the facts of the matter.

BTW, no fetus anywhere is feeling anything at 11 weeks.

Wrong.

Nervous tissue and receptors are active at 11 weeks, so they can, and do, feel pain.

FlaGator
05-14-2010, 11:43 PM
Don't be so quick to dismiss thought experiments simply because you think the situations are unlikely. Theories of morality and justice often live or die based upon them, and they can be far more fanciful than the rather mild one I proposed above - and they are discussed and taken seriously by professional philosophers of all stripes. Should a theory of morality or justice produce some sort of obviously wrong result in a hypothetical situation, they are often considered falsified. So far from being an irrelevant aside, these sorts of things are key in teasing the consequences of our beliefs, and discovering just how solid their footing really is. That is not to say all thought experiments should be taken seriously, but you certainly don't just get to dismiss anyone as irrelevant, out of hand.

And I'm quite certain, that it would be the person who dismissed and refused to answer a reasonable thought experiment, who would be "losing the argument".

If we find ourselves, one day, able to satisfy all the conditions that I believe justice is supposed to serve, without the need for punishment as we think of it today (ie. mainly the infliction of suffering upon the criminal), then it would be wrong and unnecessary. In other words, if it was in our capacity to be able to deter further crime, prevent future crimes by the same individual, make sure the victims are properly compensated, etc, then the infliction of suffering upon the criminal in question, is an immoral act of torture. His suffering would achieve no good end, nor would it restore any "balance". By any realistic meaning of the word, "balance" has already been restored. There would be no justifiable reason for the suffering.

You wrote that, in the case of the death penalty, "elimination of the criminal" is the deserved end. Presumably, you believe this end provides solid justification for the punishment. Well, in my hypothetical, the criminal is essentially eliminated, though not through death, but through rehabilitation. So, if you agree that there should be a death penalty in this possible world, where my hypothetical is reality, then you must provide an additional justification for why you think so, because it appears unnecessary.

What that thought experiment tells me about this world, is that the death penalty might only be justified, because we lack the power to rehabilitate criminals effectively, but that its not a per se good, as you seem to suggest it is.



Again, I already conceded that deterrence might be a sufficient reason to consider a death penalty. I'd also be willing to retract if shown conclusively that our prisons couldn't keep our most serious offenders securely stashed. But on the other hand, I'd still pretty sceptical that the death penalty would be the *only* practical reform that could have similar results.



Well, we can debate those issues if you want, but the issue you raised was consistency. Do you now at least recognize the basic fact of the matter, that pro-choice and anti-death penalty positions can be compatible? I know we've had many abortion conversations before, so it seems like this should be common knowledge by know, but I've always maintained that abortion is only safely permissible up to about 20 weeks into pregnancy



Of course it does - what you think us pro-choicers haven't ever seen these sorts of photos, or things like the infamous "silent scream" video? The impact that such photos are intended to have is only effective on those who, either through ignorance or willing self-deception, decide to play along in a little charade of falsely personifying a mindless organism. The fetus has its leg "stretched", therefore its stretching its leg like you or I! Maybe it has a cramp, it's really tight quarters in there! Oh look! Its thumb is near its face, so it must be sucking its thumb, like a little person! Oh no its "screaming"! It must be in pain! None of those things are true.

A fetus could look like the cutest, most cuddliest thing on the planet, or mimic any gesture, but it wouldn't change the fact that it is, quite literally, a brainless organism, incapable of any thought, feeling, or desire. So trot out all the photo's you like, it doesn't make me un-know the facts of the matter.

BTW, no fetus anywhere is feeling anything at 11 weeks.

This seems to be a excellent example of motivated irrationality.

FlaGator
05-14-2010, 11:45 PM
Yep, God was telling Peter that he was wrong on keeping the Gosple form the Gentiles. Remember Peter was in the house of a Roman when he was given the dream about the animals. Immediately after waking he goes and preaches to the Roman and converts the entire family. The reason for this dream was that he and Paul had been having a very big disagreement on this issue.

I'll agree with the circumcision because that was a convent specifically with Abraham and his descendants (and anyone that converted). But the dietary stuff went back much further, too Noah and Adam. One common misconception is that there were only 2 of each animal that went into the Ark. That wasn't true, there were 2 unclean and 7 clean. they needed food (the first time God gave permission to eat meat is after the flood) and for sacrifice, and if they ate and used unclean animals they would have gone extinct. So if this was given to Noah, then it's not just a Jewish law


Perhaps it has a duel meaning concerning both the dietary laws and declaring the gentiles as clean.

wilbur
05-14-2010, 11:47 PM
Wrong.

Nervous tissue and receptors are active at 11 weeks, so they can, and do, feel pain.

Uh, no... they can't. Brains are required. More specifically, cerebral cortexes are required.

Sonnabend
05-14-2010, 11:53 PM
Uh, no... they can't. Brains are required. More specifically, cerebral cortexes are required..and you underwent training in anatomy and physiology...where again? Please kindly tell me where you got this from?

Your qualifications in medicine and neonatal developement are..?

..and by the way what are your degrees in climate science? You seem to be quite the expert. What university did you go to?

wilbur
05-15-2010, 08:02 AM
..and you underwent training in anatomy and physiology...where again? Please kindly tell me where you got this from?

Your qualifications in medicine and neonatal developement are..?


None - I'm simply going by the consensus in the field, which wikipedia summarizes nicely - you can find in the relevant peer review, if you care to look, a consensus opinion that supports this statement:

"The accepted hypothesis of the means by which pain is perceived states that it requires certain physical structures and operations. These are not formed in fetuses until 20 weeks or more. The general consensus of the scientific community at this time is that only fetuses of this age or older are capable of perceiving pain.

Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded in a meta-analysis of data from dozens of medical reports and studies that fetuses are unlikely to feel pain until the third trimester of pregnancy.[2][3] There is an emerging consensus among developmental neurobiologists that the establishment of thalamocortical connections (at about 26 weeks) is a critical event with regard to fetal perception of pain.[4] Because pain can involve sensory, emotional and cognitive factors, it may be "impossible to know" when painful experiences are perceived, even if it is known when thalamocortical connections are established.[5]"

As you see, most seem to think real pain cannot be experienced till well after 20 weeks - but the 20 week mark is where the uncertainty escalates to a level where we can no longer be confident.



..and by the way what are your degrees in climate science? You seem to be quite the expert. What university did you go to?

Of course, I have answered this many times before - I don't have one. So I only claim to be as much or more qualified to talk about it than you or anyone else here. As for you... you can't even reliably parse the meaning of words like "statistically significant"

m00
05-15-2010, 10:17 AM
I'd be a little bit more comfortable with the death penalty if the public defenders offices around the country had the same per-case budget as the district attorney's. And also, there have been a lot of reports of FBI crime lab shenanigans in the news lately. Such as, with bullet lead analysis. Or prosecutors bringing "experts" that submit as fact things that are later demonstrated to be wrong.

I think the fundamental problem is that the goal of our justice system (at least, from the Executive's perspective) seems to be more a vehicle for guaranteeing convictions rather than dispensing justice. One argument for allowing people to remain for so long on Death Row is that science and forensic techniques are getting better all the time, and also it's getting more affordable. And this help mitigates the great disparity in budgets between the accused, and the governments that prosecute them.

PoliCon
05-15-2010, 10:39 AM
I'd be a little bit more comfortable with the death penalty if the public defenders offices around the country had the same per-case budget as the district attorney's. And also, there have been a lot of reports of FBI crime lab shenanigans in the news lately. Such as, with bullet lead analysis. Or prosecutors bringing "experts" that submit as fact things that are later demonstrated to be wrong.

I think the fundamental problem is that the goal of our justice system (at least, from the Executive's perspective) seems to be more a vehicle for guaranteeing convictions rather than dispensing justice. One argument for allowing people to remain for so long on Death Row is that science and forensic techniques are getting better all the time, and also it's getting more affordable. And this help mitigates the great disparity in budgets between the accused, and the governments that prosecute them.

So what you are saying is that we need to presume people are innocent until they have been proven guilty 6 or 7 times???

m00
05-15-2010, 10:53 AM
So what you are saying is that we need to presume people are innocent until they have been proven guilty 6 or 7 times???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument


A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

If you actually want to have a conversation about the death penalty, let me know. :p

Constitutionally Speaking
05-15-2010, 11:26 AM
My personal opinion is that for child molestors, we ought to infect them with some disease that causes oozing boils and then implant fly eggs that will hatch to become maggots. Let them eat at his flesh for a couple of weeks, and then starve the asshole to death. Probably would work for drug dealers, rapists and murderers also.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
05-15-2010, 11:47 AM
My personal opinion is that for child molestors, we ought to infect them with some disease that causes oozing boils and then implant fly eggs that will hatch to become maggots. Let them eat at his flesh for a couple of weeks, and then starve the asshole to death. Probably would work for drug dealers, rapists and murderers also.

I was thinking more along the lines of use child molesters for human testing as well as the rapists and murderers. I don't agree with torture or anything for drug dealers--unless you're dealing with really slimy ones who sell drugs to kids. If they're just regular dealers they're just providing supplying a demand the government forbids them to--they're not demons. The ones who sell drugs to kids, definitively, yeah.

Sonnabend
05-15-2010, 07:35 PM
None - I'm simply going by the consensus in the field, which wikipedia summarizes nicely - you can find in the relevant peer review, if you care to look, a consensus opinion that supports this statement:Well, dear wilbur, I happened to have worked in neonatal care, specifically neonates, in at least three separate maternity wards of different hospitals. My training included neonatal developement and gestation, as well as a clinical rotation in neonatal care.

So my facts and medical knowledge trump this(oh and speaking of support, link please?)


"The accepted hypothesis of the means by which pain is perceived states that it requires certain physical structures and operations. These are not formed in fetuses until 20 weeks or more. The general consensus of the scientific community at this time is that only fetuses of this age or older are capable of perceiving pain.

Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded in a meta-analysis of data from dozens of medical reports and studies that fetuses are unlikely to feel pain until the third trimester of pregnancy.[2][3] There is an emerging consensus among developmental neurobiologists that the establishment of thalamocortical connections (at about 26 weeks) is a critical event with regard to fetal perception of pain.[4] Because pain can involve sensory, emotional and cognitive factors, it may be "impossible to know" when painful experiences are perceived, even if it is known when thalamocortical connections are established.[5]
f course, I have answered this many times before - I don't have one. So I only claim to be as much or more qualified to talk about it than you or anyone else here. As for you... you can't even reliably parse the meaning of words like "statistically significant"Yet here you are to "school" us...in other words all you have are opinions.

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

So much for your "expertise"..and as for "consensus"?

"It does not matter if fifty million people say a stupid thing...it is still a stupid thing"

M21
05-16-2010, 12:19 AM
If **I** act alone to try and bring God's justice - you might have a point. But I never said that. I said that God commands the STATE to act in that capacity. The state can be impartial. The state can be dispassionate. The state is to be just. The State is "We the people" They're not separable. We are collectively responsible for the actions of the state. You and I are personally responsible for the actions of our government. It just shows how man centered we've become when we as the imperfect creatures are running around casting death sentences on each other. You make the same mistake humanists make in believing that man is the measure of all things, but I'm not a humanist. I believe that God alone is the measure of all things.

Galatians 5:4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from GRACE.

The only place fallen from grace is mentioned in the Bible and it is in the context of keeping the law. It cracks me up when I hear people who profess to be Christians demanding the 10 Commandments be placed or remain on courthouses and when you ask them what the 10 Commandments are they are unable to tell you more than 3 or 4, but they are sure they themselves keep them all.

PoliCon
05-16-2010, 01:27 AM
The State is "We the people" They're not separable. The state is an entity that is made up of we the people - just like the church is an entity that is made up of individual members. The members are the church - But is a single member the totality of the church? Even in the New Testament there are instructions for things you do as an individual and things you do as a corporate body.


We are collectively responsible for the actions of the state. You and I are personally responsible for the actions of our government. I don't disagree. But again, I remind you that the individual is only part and not the totality.


It just shows how man centered we've become when we as the imperfect creatures are running around casting death sentences on each other.Again, individual alone vs the body corporate. Remember Pentecost. The Apostles were in one place, in one accord and because of that the spirit of God moved on them. There are things that are verboten to the individual but requisite of the body corporate. I mean after all - if the collective body is forbidden all the same things that are forbidden to individuals - sitting in judgment at all would be forbidden to the state. Are you honestly going to make that case?


You make the same mistake humanists make in believing that man is the measure of all things, but I'm not a humanist. I believe that God alone is the measure of all things. If I thought man was the measure - why would I quote Scripture to you?
.

Galatians 5:4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from GRACE. :rolleyes: is grace cheap? Without the law - grace is worthless. You need to find a balance between law and grace. The state on the other hand, needs to serve justice and enforce the law. Grace comes into the picture through commutation of sentences, executive pardons, etc.