Knight and Lion From Theologyonline.com Answer Your Questions

[Nathon Detroit]

A few points I wish Knight and Lion had considered.

#1 – When someone lies as Kerr has (assuming it is a lie), he has shifted focus away from justice and given the true murderer cover. He has made himself an accomplice in the crime just as someone who trips a cop chasing a murder suspect would.

#2 – When someone falsely confesses to a crime, he has committed another crime to the victim’s family, and to society at large, by making light of a critical issue.

#3 - When you fail to punish falsely confessing to murders, you encourage more false confessions for attention. Soon it becomes the living nightmare that we currently live in where false confessions for high profile murders and kidnappings are common and difficult to weed through.

#4 – When you fail to punish falsely confessing to murder, you give the impression that lying in a murder trial is not necessarily a bad thing, which has the potential to encourage all forms of lying under oath.

#5 - The public view of your justice system should give the impression that it is about the speedy meeting out of justice - not something that is commonly compared to a circus.


If you agree that someone who knowlingly commits perjury in a murder case should be punished, I find it difficult to see any other punishment but capital supported by the Bible.

Good points, all to be considered. However Lion's answer on the show still stands.

None of those points are why David executed the Amalekite.

In conclusion, it can be debated as to what to do with a person like Karr but you can't use the example Jefferson gave on the show as an argument in this case because they aren't the same.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

In conclusion, it can be debated as to what to do with a person like Karr but you can't use the example Jefferson gave on the show as an argument in this case because they aren't the same.

I was speaking more in terms of the Ramsey's case, not specifically trying to back Jefferson's Amalekite reference. I think that (the Ramsy Case) was the original topic that even Jefferson's example was meant to harken back to.

 

[Toast]

I dunno Knight. I think your going a bit far in saying the point that Jefferson made has nothing to do with this. As you pointed out, David thought that the guy realled committed the crime, but as Jefferson pointed out, they didnt have a trial. Just because you think someone commits a crime, that does not warrant their execution. They have to have a trial first. Obviously David did not know for a fact that this guy commited the crime. He probably wasnt there, and he didnt have a trial. The guys word was good enough. Anyone fool enough to say that they committed a murder which they did not, bears false testimony in a capital case, and thus should be put to death. All those points made by apologetics jedi were good too.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I dunno Knight. I think your going a bit far in saying the point that Jefferson made has nothing to do with this. As you pointed out, David thought that the guy realled committed the crime, but as Jefferson pointed out, they didnt have a trial. Just because you think someone commits a crime, that does not warrant their execution. They have to have a trial first. Obviously David did not know for a fact that this guy commited the crime. He probably wasnt there, and he didnt have a trial. The guys word was good enough.

Uh... you are proving my point that all of this is very different and therefore not a good example.

Anyone fool enough to say that they committed a murder which they did not, bears false testimony in a capital case, and thus should be put to death. All those points made by apologetics jedi were good too.

Being a "fool" isn't a capital crime.

Unless you can show me otherwise.

 

[Toast]

Uh... you are proving my point that all of this is very different and therefore not a good example.

Being a "fool" isn't a capital crime.

Unless you can show me otherwise.

How am I proving your point? Explain to me this. Why did David execute the guy even though he did not know for a fact that he committed the crime? Hmm, maybe its cause the guy said he did it.

It isnt a capital crime to be a fool necessarily, but isnt bearing false testimony in a capital case?

 

[Toast]

Aside from that Knight, I just want to let you know that I think you and Lion did a great job.

 

[NarrowWay]

Yep, good job both to Knight and Lion. I tried listening to some of the show while I was working, but Poly and I listened to the rest last night. Good mix of topics. I liked the "Just-a-System" reference by Lion.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

How am I proving your point? Explain to me this. Why did David execute the guy even though he did not know for a fact that he committed the crime? Hmm, maybe its cause the guy said he did it.

Again.... the question is what to do about John Mark Karr if we find out (and we will) that he wasn't involved in the Jon Benet murder.

David didn't execute the Amalekite after it was determined that the Amalekite didn't do it. Instead the Amalekite was executed because David thought he DID do it.

Make sense?

It isnt a capital crime to be a fool necessarily, but isnt bearing false testimony in a capital case?

That depends... would you execute some old crazy man that claimed he was Hitler?

If a person is on trial in a capital case and they lie and say some poor schmuck committed murder and that poor schmuck was executed and then later it was determined he didn't do it, that perjurer should be executed because he lied and helped to convict an innocent man.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Aside from that Knight, I just want to let you know that I think you and Lion did a great job.

Thanks!

 

[Adam]

I'd like to make a musical slogan for the show (to the tune of Metallica)

"For whom the BEL TOLs, time marches on!"

 

[Toast]

I'd like to make a musical slogan for the show (to the tune of Metallica)

"For whom the BEL TOLs, time marches on!"

Lol, funny.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

That depends... would you execute some old crazy man that claimed he was Hitler?

If he was just going down the street saying it, it wouldn't constitute perjury. However if you executed anyone who committed perjury in a capital crime you would have to weed through less of that nonsense as no one would lie in a perjury case.

 

[Toast]

I think the bottom line is if you executed murderes swiftly and painfully:
(a) you would have far less murders
(b) you probably wouldnt have people (maybe like Karr) falsely saying they commited murders

Simply because people would fear the possible consequence and the pain of being executed.