Properly Enforcing the Death Penalty

JudgeRightly

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
This will be my reply to this tweet and any following tweets in this thread:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1618621561602461697

Doing it your way
Click to expand...

It's not "my" way. It's God's way. He is the one who said:

“Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man. - Genesis 9:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis9:6&version=NKJV

innocent people would be put to death,
Click to expand...

God said that letting criminals go free is just as wicked as putting an innocent man to death.

Our current system does the former AND the latter.

I'd rather have a system that is designed to be as balanced as possible, and designed to make as few mistakes as possible, while still taking into account human fallibility.

As per Battle Royale XI, and per the guarantee of Scripture, when justice is swiftly enforced, men are not as prone to commit crime. That means there would be fewer crimes committed, fewer cases where an innocent person would be punished unjustly, fewer cases where a criminal would be unjustly set free.

Our current system guarantees that there will be criminals, and lots of them, and that the system will never be able to handle all of the crime being committed, because it can take years, sometimes decades for justice to be served.

we already have a problem with this happening, discovering years after the execution, that they condemned an innocent man.
Click to expand...

And how many criminals have they let go who have then gone on to commit even more heinous crimes, all in the name of "sparing the innocent"?

As well a trial by jury is in the constitution, this is because England did it your way.
Click to expand...

There a news report several years ago where a man in Singapore drew graffiti on some property (which is a serious crime there). He was caught, sentenced, and his punishment was that he was flogged.

He was asked afterwards if he would ever graffiti again. His response?:

"I wouldn't even THINK of doing it again."

Singapore, a country with a population about the size of Los Angeles, has a FRACTION of the amount of crime. Why?

Because swift, painful punishments deter criminals.
 
Bradley D

Bradley D

Well-known member
ok doser said:
And how many murders (not counting abortion) that might have been deterred by a swiftly executed death sentence?
Click to expand...
Not sure. I believe in making sure they have reliable evidence. Have executions really deterred murder. A number of these people have mental problems. Some have even committed suicide after their crime.
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It's better to risk executing an innocent man than to risk letting a guilty man go free.
 
T

ThePartyPooper

BANNED
Banned
I am afraid people are not going to like my answer in this post. But, when a human institution like state or federal government takes the life of a US citizen, we must make darn sure that the guilty party truly is guilty. These days we have seen too many people lie on juries and too many corrupt judges just to be able to put someone to death after a single trial. Therefore I am not opposed to a series of safeguards that kick in after a trial just to be sure that the guilty man had a fair trial.

Now, having said that, I will also agree that in some places there are far too many safeguards in place and the process is stretched out way too long, so in that regard I do agree with the op. But unfortunately just having two or three people say someone is guilty, while it may be biblical, it is not very practical and innocent people really could be put to death
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Right Divider said:
I don't like either of those two options.
Executing an innocent man is murder.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily.

I also do not like either.

But if we had to choose — ie, if it were me making the rules — a system that ran the risk of executing an innocent man because it had capital punishment would be better than risking a murderer on the loose without capital punishment — I'd go for the one that had the possibility of some good coming from it.

Nothing good can arise from letting a guilty man go unpunished.
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Stripe said:
Not necessarily.

I also do not like either.

But if we had to choose — ie, if it were me making the rules — a system that ran the risk of executing an innocent man because it had capital punishment would be better than risking a murderer on the loose without capital punishment — I'd go for the one that had the possibility of some good coming from it.

Nothing good can arise from letting a guilty man go unpunished.
Click to expand...
The guilty should be punished and the non-guilty not. We agree.

The problem is always determining guilt.
 
Yorzhik

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
JudgeRightly said:
There a news report several years ago where a man in Singapore drew graffiti on some property (which is a serious crime there). He was caught, sentenced, and his punishment was that he was flogged.

He was asked afterwards if he would ever graffiti again. His response?:

"I wouldn't even THINK of doing it again."

Singapore, a country with a population about the size of Los Angeles, has a FRACTION of the amount of crime. Why?

Because swift, painful punishments deter criminals.
Click to expand...
And it has the added benefit that, at least in that aspect of his behavior, he is a better person. It was the best thing that could be done for him. And he can now go on to be a well adjusted member of society.
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Stripe said:
It's better to risk executing an innocent man than to risk letting a guilty man go free.
Click to expand...
How so? You speak as though it's an either/or which is a fallacy in itself. Why can't it be possible to stringently ascertain guilt before executing someone and keep those where there's doubt in custody until their guilt or innocence is established also without risking letting them back into society? If God abhors the shedding of innocent blood then an innocent person being sent to the gallows is no better than murder.

Okay, I'm against the DP but it's because of this sort of 'reasoning' in the main.
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
ThePartyPooper said:
I am afraid people are not going to like my answer in this post. But, when a human institution like state or federal government takes the life of a US citizen, we must make darn sure that the guilty party truly is guilty. These days we have seen too many people lie on juries and too many corrupt judges just to be able to put someone to death after a single trial. Therefore I am not opposed to a series of safeguards that kick in after a trial just to be sure that the guilty man had a fair trial.

Now, having said that, I will also agree that in some places there are far too many safeguards in place and the process is stretched out way too long, so in that regard I do agree with the op. But unfortunately just having two or three people say someone is guilty, while it may be biblical, it is not very practical and innocent people really could be put to death
Click to expand...
Wow, for once I kinda agree with you. Plus, methods for bronze age tribes that the Bible describes at the time hardly apply to now when we have much more accurate and reliable methods to determine guilt/innocence. Not infallible certainly and the systems we have still make mistakes even with those in place.
 
JudgeRightly

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Bradley D said:
I remember when DNA was beginning to be used for evidence for crimes. A 190 people on death row since 1973 were cleared.
Click to expand...

An excellent point!

One I'm sure Renegade has either forgotten or never considered.
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Arthur Brain said:
How so?
Click to expand...
See my subsequent post.

You speak as though it's an either/or which is a fallacy in itself.
Click to expand...

Either/or questions are inherently fallacious?

News to us.

Why can't it be possible to stringently ascertain guilt before executing someone and keep those where there's doubt in custody until their guilt or innocence is established also without risking letting them back into society?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Did someone say that was impossible?

If God abhors the shedding of innocent blood then an innocent person being sent to the gallows is no better than murder.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Okay, I'm against the DP but it's because of this sort of 'reasoning' in the main.
Click to expand...
What?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top