No Death Penalty. What Is Your Position?

[Town Heretic]

Innocent people get murdered at epidemic rates. Your proposed changes would do nothing to address that.

Actually, murder rates have diminished pretty consistently as the Baby Boom generation ages. The epidemic was in the 70s and into the early 90s. I set that out in a larger discussion a while back. I'll see if I can find it.

My changes aren't meant to address that larger consideration. I'm speaking to a limited topic, the death penalty. I'm noting why I object to it and what I'd do in relation to two legitimate concerns.

There are more than prisoners in prison.

True. But no one who works in a prison is drafted into the service, so there is an element of assumed risk involved. I read a study a few years ago that had the death per 100k at around 2.5, lower than outside of the prison walls, though they're more likely to suffer injury from assaults.

And: "See, the system works."

It does, but it isn't perfect, and that's a different topic, really. A much broader one than I'm speaking to here.

Suddenly you're OK with capital punishment when criminals deal it out?

Of course not.

 

[bibleverse2]

Can a murderer be forgiven?

Yes, with confession and repentance, for:

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Also, note that even under the now-abolished letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Ephesians 2:15), King David was forgiven for murdering a man:

2 Samuel 12:9 . . . thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite . . .
2 Samuel 12:13 . . . YHWH also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

My sin is not murder, though I said someone was bothering me once when asked.

Being bothered by someone is okay (Acts 16:18), but hating them is not, for:

1 John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Matthew 5:21 ¶Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

 

[Stripe]

Actually, murder rates have diminished pretty consistently as the Baby Boom generation ages.

So they've fallen to epidemic rates. Great. lain:

My changes aren't meant to address that larger consideration. I'm speaking to a limited topic, the death penalty. I'm noting why I object to it and what I'd do in relation to two legitimate concerns.

The overriding legitimate concern is protecting innocent people from murderers. Why do you not factor in the numbers that will not be addressed by your proposal?

Of course not.

So why take the risk?

 

[Town Heretic]

So they've fallen to epidemic rates. Great. lain:

That's not what I said. So, no. You think it's epidemic. If I'm remembering correctly, the last time I addressed this the numbers were back down to near where they were in the 50s, before the explosion of violence linked to the Baby Boomers, in terms of murders per 100k.

The overriding legitimate concern is protecting innocent people from murderers.

The OP and question I'm considering is the DP. And there I've proposed a way to prevent the state from doing that which it shouldn't, killing the innocent, while protecting society from the justly convicted and minimizing the risk to those who assume it.

Why do you not factor in the numbers that will not be addressed by your proposal?

That's another one you'll have to unpack. It reads like an odd way to ask why I don't consider what doesn't factor into my argument.

So why take the risk?

Risk is inescapable. If you push ahead with the DP then you risk killing innocent people. If you release people who've been convicted you risk the general public. If you keep them you risk the chance of their hurting or killing someone within the system.

And with that, I'm to bed. :e4e:

 

[bibleverse2]

I believe that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law but that in Him it may have been abolished. That is difficult for me, because heaven and earth have not yet passed away.

Are you thinking of the following verse?

Matthew 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.

If so, note that this did not mean that heaven and earth had to pass away before the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments could be abolished, but that Jesus Christ had to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies regarding the Messiah's/the Christ's first coming (Luke 24:44-46; e.g. Acts 3:22-26, Isaiah 53) before He could abolish the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments (for both Jews and Gentiles, of all times) on the Cross (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-19).

(See also post #140 above)

 

[Stripe]

That's not what I said.

That's right. It's what I said.

So, yes.

You think it's not an epidemic.

The OP and question I'm considering is the DP. And there I've proposed a way to prevent the state from doing that which it shouldn't, killing the innocent, while protecting society from the justly convicted and minimizing the risk to those who assume it.

Except that we pretty much have your system, but there is an epidemic murder rate.

That's another one you'll have to unpack.

It's pretty clear. You're using a few people executed for crimes they didn't commit. You'll use that number all day, but ignore other data.

Risk is inescapable. If you push ahead with the DP then you risk killing innocent people. If you release people who've been convicted you risk the general public. If you keep them you risk the chance of their hurting or killing someone within the system.

So your standard is better because "risk is inescapable"? :AMR:

Why not just do away with a justice system, after all, "risk is inescapable."

 

[bibleverse2]

There is a great need for massive prison reform. Starting with. ... using prison for ONLY those who can be reformed.

Note that any elect person can be reformed, even the chief of sinners (1 Timothy 1:15).

That is, because of the wonderful example of Saul the persecutor becoming Paul the apostle (1 Timothy 1:12-17; Acts 7:58 to Acts 13:9), Christians should never give up on any non-Christians, no matter how hostile they are to Christians and the Christian faith. Instead, Christians should keep praying for them that God would miraculously save their souls (2 Timothy 2:25, Ephesians 2:8, Colossians 1:21-23). And because of the example of Saul becoming Paul, those who have persecuted Christians and reviled the Christian faith in the past, but now feel God's gifts of repentance and faith (2 Timothy 2:25, Ephesians 2:8) moving within them, should not think that what they have done against Christians and the Christian faith (whether in word or in deed) in the past disqualifies them now from being able to repent, to ask God's forgiveness, and to receive His salvation through their faith in Jesus Christ (Colossians 1:21-22).

 

[bibleverse2]

How can we know with certainty who will eventually repent and who will not?

Acts 16:31 is what Christians should preach to everyone (Mark 16:15-16). For Christians do not know, and must never assume, which non-Christians are elect individuals (Acts 13:48b) and which are nonelect (John 8:42-47, John 10:26-27). No one should ever be assumed to be nonelect until he dies without ever believing in Jesus Christ.

 

[Clete]

Where did I say you did? It's a question far from settled with a lot of competing positions and data. Doesn't really touch upon my objection, but I understand that you feel it does something, but that its efficacy could be considerably increased with additional measures and changes that aren't probable.

As for the rest, I believe you believe it and you have every right to. I've set out my primary objection, which isn't impacted by it as things stand.

Do you believe that Christians ought to advocate just laws?

You've mentioned a few times now that the enactment of just laws in the United States is unlikely and that therefore any argument based on them is a moot point. I think that's something of a cop out.

So what if it's not likely to become law. Do you think that it's more likely to become law if no one advocates for it? Do you think that whatever laws are put in place are going to be closer to being just if no one advocates for the way things ought to be?

How is it better for a Christian to advocate for unjust laws on the basis that they are likely to get enacted?

 

[Clete]

It was here: http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...enalty-BR-XI&p=1226777&viewfull=1#post1226777

Images have been lost though. They were astounding.

Oh man! I hate that the graphs are gone! At least the numbers are stated in the post. Thanks for finding that! I have no idea how you did it!

Hey, was Turbo the best poster on TOL or what?

 

[Stripe]

Oh man! I hate that the graphs are gone! At least the numbers are stated in the post. Thanks for finding that! I have no idea how you did it!

Followed the debate closely. Hard to forget.

Hey, was Turbo the best poster on TOL or what?

Difficult to argue with that.

 

[Stripe]

So what if it's not likely to become law. Do you think that it's more likely to become law if no one advocates for it? Do you think that whatever laws are put in place are going to be closer to being just if no one advocates for the way things ought to be?

How is it better for a Christian to advocate for unjust laws on the basis that they are likely to get enacted?

And there's no way his ideas are going to be implemented.

 

[Town Heretic]

That's right. It's what I said.

So when you say they've fallen to epidemic rates in relation to my quote you're not really responding to me, only appearing to while using a quote by me to repeat yourself. Just wanted that clear.

It's pretty clear. You're using a few people executed for crimes they didn't commit. You'll use that number all day, but ignore other data.

Well, no. I don't and haven't.

So your standard is better because "risk is inescapable"?

It's better because it prevents the state from inadvertently killing the innocent.

Do you believe that Christians ought to advocate just laws?

I believe that what I'm proposing, a way to make the inadvertent taking of innocent life, is just.

You've mentioned a few times now that the enactment of just laws in the United States is unlikely and that therefore any argument based on them is a moot point. I think that's something of a cop out.

You're entitled to your feeling. It simply doesn't move the argument or address it.

So what if it's not likely to become law.

Let's be really clear here, the Biblical approach to criminal justice would entail a wholesale alteration of our laws and foundational principles. That's not going to happen. It's not remotely within the realm of possibility, let alone probability. For that reason it's a vanity project of sorts by any rational soul advancing it. It may display any number of things, from prowess in argument, to rhetorical gifts, but it won't actually amount to anything.

I'm speaking to things that can be done without that upheaval and which are possible.

 

[Stripe]

So when you say they've fallen to epidemic rates in relation to my quote you're not really responding to me, only appearing to while using a quote by me to repeat yourself. Just wanted that clear.

There was no confusion. :idunno:

It's better because it prevents the state from inadvertently killing the innocent.

Except that you add up these lives, but ignore the lives lost in areas your proposal can never address (recidivism, the epidemic murder rate).

 

[Town Heretic]

There was no confusion.

Then no harm done in making sure that's true for everyone else.

Except that you add up these lives, but ignore the lives lost in areas your proposal can never address (recidivism, the epidemic murder rate).

Actually, recidivistic violence was directly addressed by my proffer and your impression of the murder rate isn't empirically established as true because you're willing to repeat it.

 

[Stripe]

Let's be really clear here, the Biblical approach to criminal justice would entail a wholesale alteration of our laws and foundational principles. That's not going to happen. It's not remotely within the realm of possibility, let alone probability. For that reason it's a vanity project of sorts by any rational soul advancing it. It may display any number of things, from prowess in argument, to rhetorical gifts, but it won't actually amount to anything.

Thanks for nothing. We want justice, the lawyer demands adherence to the "status quo" of injustice.

I'm speaking to things that can be done without that upheaval and which are possible.

Locking up your special class of murderers for life without parole is never going to happen.

You can argue all you like, you can use all the fancy words you like; it's never going to happen.

If we are truly in the same boat of only debating what would hypothetically be best, at least our ideas:
A) Would have a shot at addressing the murder epidemic, and
B) Advocate justice.

 

[Stripe]

Then no harm done in making sure that's true for everyone else.

There's no one else here. :idunno:

Recidivistic violence was directly addressed by my proffer.

You responded, I guess.

However, those numbers still exist.

Your impression of the murder rate isn't empirically established as true because you're willing to repeat it.

Regardless of how I describe it, those numbers still exist and you are still ignoring them.

 

[Town Heretic]

Thanks for nothing. We want justice, the lawyer demands adherence to the "status quo" of injustice.

You're free to advance any flag that suits you. I'm telling Jacob (and anyone else interested) why I object to the DP and what we can do to safeguard the system from continuing to inadvertently execute the innocent while doing better to protect the general population.

Locking up your special class of murderers for life without parole is never going to happen.

Actually, it already has and continues to happen in some cases. So you're wrong there. We have life in prison without the possibility of parole. I'm asserting that we should widen its use and end the gamble.

 

[Town Heretic]

There's no one else here.

Why are you going on about that?

You responded, I guess.

Directly. No need to guess. Do you need help finding it? I'd be happy to set it out again.

However, those numbers still exist.

And were addressed, directly.

 

[Stripe]

You're free to advance any flag that suits you. I'm telling Jacob (and anyone else interested) why I object to the DP and what we can do to safeguard the system from continuing to inadvertently execute the innocent while doing better to protect the general population.

And ignoring every challenge.

It already has and continues to happen in some cases.

Nope.

You can't point to a few instances of life without parole being handed down and ignore all the times it hasn't or has been overturned.

Life without parole for the special class of murderers you reckon should have it is never going to happen.

So you're wrong there.

I'm asserting that we should widen its use and end the gamble.

That will never happen. What will happen is that sentences will become more lenient and lawyers will get more murderers back on the streets.

What we propose is justice. People will still be at risk, but at least they would be able to trust that justice will be done.