If you want an author in support then you need to look elsewhere, might I suggest Jack Chick (obviously I'm using the term "author" in the loosest possible sense there).
The chances of people being put to death for crimes they did not commit would be very low in my system, because there wouldn't be even a thousandth of the number of crimes being committed today under it.
Putting criminals who have committed capital crimes to death will result in fewer criminals commmitting capital crimes. How does that not protect society?
"The disintegration of the family, the rejection of Christ, the ever increasing prevalence of illegal drug use and psychological problems, the embrace of immorality and perversion, the unprecedented murder rate among young black males..."
Given the chance, you would take away my right to live in a safe society by abolishing the death penalty entirely.
Yes, we agree.
He promoted a lot of things that you consider "fundamentalism."
So what?
I'm sure he'll be fine.
Who?
Wrong.
Putting criminals in prison isn't locking them up?
News to me! Is that how you justify it? That putting people in prison isn't actually locking them up like animals?
The chances of people being put to death for crimes they did not commit would be very low in my system, because there wouldn't be even a thousandth of the number of crimes being committed today under it.
No, it's just cruel.
Also, Jesus is the one who sets captives free. How does that fit in with using prisons as punishment?
Suspending the rights of a suspect is one thing. Stripping someone of their rights as a human being is wrong.
Putting criminals who have committed capital crimes to death will result in fewer criminals commmitting capital crimes. How does that not protect society?
Better to put them to death, so they can never harm anyone again. 100% of violent sexual offenders who are put to death never commit another crime.
To quote ok doser:
"The disintegration of the family, the rejection of Christ, the ever increasing prevalence of illegal drug use and psychological problems, the embrace of immorality and perversion, the unprecedented murder rate among young black males..."
Nope, as I've argued counter. If you're gonna call me a liar then you need to get your facts straight on the matter first.
Lewis didn't promote anything like what you advocate and wasn't a far right fundamentalist by a long shot. Anglicanism is pretty much the antithesis of it.
Haven't heard of Jack Chick or his infamous 'Chick tracts'? Surprising...
Of course it's locking them up and curtailing their freedom. There's a punitive factor for sure along with a safeguarding one but it's not like I'm advocating that every convict be chained to a wall for 24 hours a day and fed stale bread and water. If I was advocating the sickening likes of North Korean prisons you might have had a point. Funny how you think that swiftly and painfully executing anyone convicted of a capital crime without any appeal isn't somehow cruel and injust in itself.
Pffft, if you wanna quote doser then crack on with it. Absolute rubbish of course but then there's always those who seem to think things were better 'back in the day' when they so obviously weren't.
just gonna touch on this as not got time in the forseeable to devote much to this anymore and in all honesty it would be pretty much pointless as it is anyway.
Of course it's locking them up and curtailing their freedom. There's a punitive factor for sure along with a safeguarding one but it's not like I'm advocating that every convict be chained to a wall for 24 hours a day and fed stale bread and water. If I was advocating the sickening likes of North Korean prisons you might have had a point.
The point is that locking people up as a form of punishment is cruel and inhumane.
Jesus set captives free. Quite the contrast, don't you think?
Funny how you think that swiftly and painfully executing anyone convicted of a capital crime without any appeal isn't somehow cruel and unjust in itself.
Pffft, the irony. It was a week before I even logged back in on here before that reply cos kinda busy in life.
Of course I wouldn't. Lewis wasn't a far right fundamentalist, that's fact. There may well be something that you and Lewis agree on, doesn't alter the fact. There's the rare occasion that I've agreed with something that a far right wingnut has said that actually made sense.
Check the guy out. You'd probably like his infamous tracts...
Whereas putting people to death is all merciful and kind. I've stated my case well enough and you can call it inhumane all ya like. Heck, don't you believe that animals don't have any rights? They do where I'm at.
Was Jesus referring to setting violent offenders free from jail? Um, no.
Funny how having just such an appeals process led to the overturning of guilty convictions that in your system would have had innocent people swiftly and painfully executed. Immense fail on your part there JR.
Course it isn't false. You want to be glad you have the luxury of the technology you have to laughably moan about stuff so much.
For example, a rapist is caught and then convicted. He did it. And there was enough evidence to convict.
You would have the rapist shoved into a prison somewhere where He can appeal his case for decades, all the while mocking his victim from his jail cell, because "there's a chance he didn't do it and will be exonerated," all while he lives off the taxpayer dollar, never having to work another day in his life.
I would have the rapist put to death, so that his victim can rest knowing that he will never harm her ever again, and society can rest knowing that he will never harm anyone else again.
So really, which is more merciful and kind to society?
Forcing society to pay to house and feed and clothe this convicted rapist, or putting him to death so that he can never harm another soul?
I've stated my case well enough and you can call it inhumane all ya like.
He set sinners free from captivity, and led captivity captive. Or were you not aware of that?
Funny how having just such an appeals process led to the overturning of guilty convictions that in your system would have had innocent people swiftly and painfully executed.
The number of people wrongly convicted, or wrongfully set free, would be few and far in between simply because the number of crimes committed on a daily basis would be orders of magnitude less than the total number of crimes committed every day currently.
For example, a rapist is caught and then convicted. He did it. And there was enough evidence to convict.
You would have the rapist shoved into a prison somewhere where He can appeal his case for decades, all the while mocking his victim from his jail cell, because "there's a chance he didn't do it and will be exonerated," all while he lives off the taxpayer dollar, never having to work another day in his life.
I would have the rapist put to death, so that his victim can rest knowing that he will never harm her ever again, and society can rest knowing that he will never harm anyone else again.
So really, which is more merciful and kind to society?
Forcing society to pay to house and feed and clothe this convicted rapist, or putting him to death so that he can never harm another soul?
I call it inhumane BECAUSE IT IS inhumane.
It's completely irrelevant. Treating humans like animals is, by definition, inhumane.
He set sinners free from captivity, and led captivity captive. Or were you not aware of that?
The number of people wrongly convicted, or wrongfully set free, would be few and far in between simply because the number of crimes committed on a daily basis would be orders of magnitude less than the total number of crimes committed every day currently.
False.
Yes it is.
Level of technology has nothing to do with the overall level of morality in a nation. Quit obfuscating.
Oh, so periodically addressing your thread while periodically logging into TOL equates to acting like an energizer bunny does it? Oh, okay then. Hey, if you just want the thread to yourself and the peanut gallery then just say the word JR.
Of course I'm not gonna retract anything. Lewis did not go along with what you advocate here and have done elsewhere. That there may well be certain points where you agree with him does not invalidate that. I suspect you may well agree with some of his thoughts on punishment as per his writings but on this subject he is not an ally of yours.
Hey, Catholic Crusader and his myriad incarnations on here is one of the biggest loons that's ever been on this forum. Still had to give him his due when he made a comment earlier in this thread that against the odds actually made sense.
You need some consistency where it comes to jail as well. One minute it's inhumane and cruel to those locked up and then it's somehow their mocking the loved one's family from the cell and never having to work a day in their life while being fed and clothed etc? Which is it? The more merciful and kind to society is to have a system where convicted violent offenders are locked up with no possibility of release unless their innocence is established.
Oh, how one regards animals is entirely relevant. How people treat and view animals says a lot about how they view people. It;s hardly surprising that plenty of violent offenders have a record of animal cruelty by way of.
So, that quote didn't have anything to do with people being set free from jail then.
Your whole 'orders of magnitude less' is just assertion in dire want of support.
It ain't false but you believe it to be so all ya like, just as you laughably think society is somehow worse than when we had segregation et al. Total nonsense but hey, some folk seem to like seeing the sky falling in when it's just bright and blue as ever.
Oh, so periodically addressing your thread while periodically logging into TOL equates to acting like an energizer bunny does it? Oh, okay then. Hey, if you just want the thread to yourself and the peanut gallery then just say the word JR.
just gonna touch on this as not got time in the forseeable to devote much to this anymore and in all honesty it would be pretty much pointless as it is anyway.
But he DID teach things that I, too, support, such as chastity, so to the extent that he DOES go along with what I advocate here on TOL, your claim is false.
That there may well be certain points where you agree with him does not invalidate that.
Hey, Catholic Crusader and his myriad incarnations on here is one of the biggest loons that's ever been on this forum. Still had to give him his due when he made a comment earlier in this thread that against the odds actually made sense.
The more merciful and kind to society is to have a system where convicted violent offenders are locked up with no possibility of release unless their innocence is established.
No, that results in violent offenders mocking their victims from their jail cells, treated like animals (the very definition of inhumane).
It's not merciful or kind to society to let live criminals who should not be alive, it's only "nice" (ick) to the criminals. Nicer than God, which is a sin.
The definition of "inhumane" is "not treating something/someone cruelly, without compassion for their misery."
Let's say, under your system, you put someone in prison because they're a violent offender.
You feed, clothe, medicate, entertain, keep warm in winter and cool in summer, et al, them. Do you think they'll be happy that they're in prison? NO! They'll be utterly miserable, and that misery WILL grow into resentment, resentment of you and the system that put them there. They'll resent the fact that they got caught, rather than showing remorse for their actions.
You, Arthur, lack the compassion you accuse me of lacking, by wanting people locked up in prisons.
I would rather they be punished, and if their crime is not worthy of the death penalty, they be punished and let go, so that they can go about their lives, and NOT be miserable in prison.
How people treat and view animals says a lot about how they view people. It's hardly surprising that plenty of violent offenders have a record of animal cruelty by way of.
So, that quote didn't have anything to do with people being set free from jail then.
Jesus would rather set people free from prison than lock them up. That's why He went to the cross, Arthur, so that the prison called Hell could be as empty as possible come judgement day!
Your whole 'orders of magnitude less' is just assertion in dire want of support.
1) Segregation is bad.
2) Society is still worse overall, despite eliminating Segregation. Society's betterment is not tied ONLY to whether we have segregation laws.
Your argument is a non-sequitur.
Total nonsense but hey, some folk seem to like seeing the sky falling in when it's just bright and blue as ever.
The problem with this claim (which is NOT the same as saying that Lewis:
(which I never said He was)) is that he did, in fact, promote at least one thing "like what (I) advocate."
Remember the quote I posted earlier from him?
Yeah, that came from his chapter on chastity in his book Mere Christianity.
I too, support chastity.
Thus, your claim that, "Lewis didn't promote anything like what you advocate" is false.
Would you please be honest enough to at least retract that claim?
Here in this thread? Perhaps not.
But he DID teach things that I, too, support, such as chastity, so to the extent that he DOES go along with what I advocate here on TOL, your claim is false.
But it DOES invalidate your claim that "Lewis didn't promote anything like what you advocate."
Would you at least retract that claim?
Where did I say he was?
But you won't retract a claim that I have clearly demonstrated to be false, no? The exceptions you make are what matter, Arty.
I have been consistent.
Because it is.
Because they do.
Both.
No, that results in violent offenders mocking their victims from their jail cells, treated like animals (the very definition of inhumane).
It's not merciful or kind to society to let live criminals who should not be alive, it's only "nice" (ick) to the criminals. Nicer than God, which is a sin.
Not to this topic, it isn't.
The definition of "inhumane" is "not treating something/someone cruelly, without compassion for their misery."
Let's say, under your system, you put someone in prison because they're a violent offender.
You feed, clothe, medicate, entertain, keep warm in winter and cool in summer, et al, them. Do you think they'll be happy that they're in prison? NO! They'll be utterly miserable, and that misery WILL grow into resentment, resentment of you and the system that put them there. They'll resent the fact that they got caught, rather than showing remorse for their actions.
You, Arthur, lack the compassion you accuse me of lacking, by wanting people locked up in prisons.
I would rather they be punished, and if their crime is not worthy of the death penalty, they be punished and let go, so that they can go about their lives, and NOT be miserable in prison.
Jesus would rather set people free from prison than lock them up. That's why He went to the cross, Arthur, so that the prison called Hell could be as empty as possible come judgement day!
False.
Yes it is.
1) Segregation is bad.
2) Society is still worse overall, despite eliminating Segregation. Society's betterment is not tied ONLY to whether we have segregation laws.
Your argument is a non-sequitur.
The sky IS falling (figuratively speaking). You just haven't been hit by any of the pieces of it yet.
Yeah, I'm well aware of what i said JR. I don't have as much time to be on TOL nowadays as busy elsewhere and my prerogative to address any thread I like or not as the case may be, If that irks you and you simply want it to yourself and the peanut gallery then again, just say the word or stop banging on about it.
You bought Lewis up in a thread about the death penalty. It was entirely fair game to point out that Lewis did not advocate anything like you on the score on the topic that this thread is supposedly devoted to. If it had been about chastity then there wouldn't even be a point of argument but it isn't. As such you'll get no retractions from me.
You're not consistent. If you consider jail to be inhumane then you need to quit with prisoners somehow mocking loved ones by being fed, entertained and watered and not needing to work. Btw, you do realize that inmates actually are made to work in prison, right? Once again you assert without substance also. I know a bloke at college who served 10 years in jail for violent assault. He was upfront about it from the get go and made no excuses for his crime and time served. While in jail he underwent anger management courses to the point where he became a mentor to other prisoners who had similar anger issues. It's his aim to serve as an example to younger people what can happen if you go off the rails so prison didn't cause him to have a lack of remorse for his actions or live in resentment for being caught. If anything it helped him get back on the right path in life. Oh, how it can be 'nicer than God' to argue for jail considering how you view it as inhumane is bizarre to say the least.
Jesus wasn't referring to violent offenders being released from jail then.
Well, if you think the sky is falling in then best wear some head gear then, else the rest of us can recognize that society is a lot healthier place to live in than times past.
Yeah, I'm well aware of what i said JR. I don't have as much time to be on TOL nowadays as busy elsewhere and my prerogative to address any thread I like or not as the case may be, If that irks you and you simply want it to yourself and the peanut gallery then again, just say the word or stop banging on about it.
You bought Lewis up in a thread about the death penalty. It was entirely fair game to point out that Lewis did not advocate anything like you on the score on the topic that this thread is supposedly devoted to. If it had been about chastity then there wouldn't even be a point of argument but it isn't. As such you'll get no retractions from me.
Prisoners mocking their victims is all too common.
Don't believe me? Just google it, "criminal mocks victim in courtroom," and see.
Why? Because they can get away with it.
What is the judge going to do? Add more time to their already lengthy sentence? What's a few extra days or weeks as a punishment for being in contempt of the court when his sentence is measured in years?
The ONLY way to stop it is to punish them severely WHEN they do it, not years after the fact.
For example, this is one of the articles that comes up when searching.
Spoiler
WARNING: Disgusting comments were made by the killer.
Gunman shocks victims' families by cursing at them, flipping a bird.
www.usatoday.com
Nothing at all was said about what was done to the teen for doing what he did in the courtroom that day, but he likely wasn't punished at all.
If I were the presiding judge over that case, and he walked in with that shirt on, and then proceeded to do and say the same thing in my courtroom, I would have adjourned the proceedings for 10 minutes so he could be flogged 10 lashes and to put on proper attire, or to remove that shirt, which would then be used as evidence, and then once that was finished, the case would have proceeded, and then because he did it, and it was clear that he did it based on the evidence, I would have sentenced him to death for his crime, and he would then be executed.
by being fed, entertained and watered and not needing to work.
And guess who has to bear the burden of those "needs"?
Taxpayers, who instead of working hard to suport themselves, now have to support the lowlifes in prison as well.
How is THAT fair?
I hope you realize, Arthur, that just because you put a dress on a skunk, that it won't make the smell go away, right?
Dressing up prison as a place where people can be fed, clothed, educated, medicated, legally represented, etc, doesn't change the fact that you're still locking a person up in a cage like aan animal.
Btw, you do realize that inmates actually are made to work in prison, right?
He should hvae been flogged, so that he could have spent those ten years being a productive member of society, rather than being locked up in a cage.
He was upfront about it from the get go and made no excuses for his crime and time served. While in jail he underwent anger management courses to the point where he became a mentor to other prisoners who had similar anger issues. It's his aim to serve as an example to younger people what can happen if you go off the rails so prison didn't cause him to have a lack of remorse for his actions or live in resentment for being caught. If anything it helped him get back on the right path in life.
Again, putting a dress on a skunk won't make the smell go away.
Had he been flogged instead, and forced to pay the medical fees of his victim(s) and any loss of wages, he could have taken anger management courses to the point where he could have been a mentor to his community, especially those who might have have anger issues of their own, to deter them from going off the rails and becoming a criminal themselves. Instead of wasting 10 years in prson, he could have been 10 years further down "the right path" had he been flogged and then let back into society.
Do you see the difference? And in addition to THAT, the taxpayers would have been spared having to pay taxes to fund his prison sentence. Think of all the things they could have spent their money on to boost the economy!
Oh, how it can be 'nicer than God' to argue for jail considering how you view it as inhumane is bizarre to say the least.
He committed adultery, then murderered the woman's husband to cover up his crime, and he even used a war to do it!
Arthur, I know you've never done any sort of study on how prisons are portrayed in the Bible. I can tell you, however, that they are not portrayed positively. It's always the evil nations that lock up their citizens, who punish their criminals with jail time. This negative portrayal is intentional. Early on in Israel's history under the Mosaic law, we're given an example of how it SHOULD be done. A man commits a crime and is caught, and so he is held until a judgement can be passed, and then, if it was a capital crime, he is put to death, or if it's not a capital crime, he is punished harshly, and then released. Never once does the Bible show a righteous nation (or one depicted in a favorable light) as using prison as a form of punishment.
Well, if you think the sky is falling in then best wear some head gear then, else the rest of us can recognize that society is a lot healthier place to live in than times past.
In other words... "I, Arthur Brain, refuse to be intellectually honest enough to retract a claim I made that has since been shown to be false."
Yes I am.
What I "consider" has nothing to do with it.
It IS inhumane.
Why?
Prisoners mocking their victims is all too common.
Don't believe me? Just google it, "criminal mocks victim in courtroom," and see.
Why? Because they can get away with it.
What is the judge going to do? Add more time to their already lengthy sentence? What's a few extra days or weeks as a punishment for being in contempt of the court when his sentence is measured in years?
The ONLY way to stop it is to punish them severely WHEN they do it, not years after the fact.
For example, this is one of the articles that comes up when searching.
Spoiler
WARNING: Disgusting comments were made by the killer.
Gunman shocks victims' families by cursing at them, flipping a bird.
www.usatoday.com
Nothing at all was said about what was done to the teen for doing what he did in the courtroom that day, but he likely wasn't punished at all.
If I were the presiding judge over that case, and he walked in with that shirt on, and then proceeded to do and say the same thing in my courtroom, I would have adjourned the proceedings for 10 minutes so he could be flogged 10 lashes and to put on proper attire, or to remove that shirt, which would then be used as evidence, and then once that was finished, the case would have proceeded, and then because he did it, and it was clear that he did it based on the evidence, I would have sentenced him to death for his crime, and he would then be executed.
And guess who has to bear the burden of those "needs"?
Taxpayers, who instead of working hard to suport themselves, now have to support the lowlifes in prison as well.
How is THAT fair?
I hope you realize, Arthur, that just because you put a dress on a skunk, that it won't make the smell go away, right?
Dressing up prison as a place where people can be fed, clothed, educated, medicated, legally represented, etc, doesn't change the fact that you're still locking a person up in a cage like aan animal.
You do realize that not all inmates are allowed to work, right?
False.
He should hvae been flogged, so that he could have spent those ten years being a productive member of society, rather than being locked up in a cage.
Again, putting a dress on a skunk won't make the smell go away.
Had he been flogged instead, and forced to pay the medical fees of his victim(s) and any loss of wages, he could have taken anger management courses to the point where he could have been a mentor to his community, especially those who might have have anger issues of their own, to deter them from going off the rails and becoming a criminal themselves. Instead of wasting 10 years in prson, he could have been 10 years further down "the right path" had he been flogged and then let back into society.
Do you see the difference? And in addition to THAT, the taxpayers would have been spared having to pay taxes to fund his prison sentence. Think of all the things they could have spent their money on to boost the economy!
God said "life for life" and to put the convicted murderer to death.
You want to give murderers "life," to be nice to them, because "evidence might come about that shows them to be innocent."
King David wasn't a violent offender?
He committed adultery, then murderered the woman's husband to cover up his crime, and he even used a war to do it!
Arthur, I know you've never done any sort of study on how prisons are portrayed in the Bible. I can tell you, however, that they are not portrayed positively. It's always the evil nations that lock up their citizens, who punish their criminals with jail time. This negative portrayal is intentional. Early on in Israel's history under the Mosaic law, we're given an example of how it SHOULD be done. A man commits a crime and is caught, and so he is held until a judgement can be passed, and then, if it was a capital crime, he is put to death, or if it's not a capital crime, he is punished harshly, and then released. Never once does the Bible show a righteous nation (or one depicted in a favorable light) as using prison as a form of punishment.
I'd rather fix, or better, replace the broken parts. You just ignore them.
Well, if that's what you think you're doing then hey, crack on with it. The far right are often a laugh riot for me and often sad to witness too so ho hum.
I've been absolutely honest with you as regards Lewis with full explanation so your accusation is simply hollow.
Yeah, really not interested in carrying this on as it's just the same tired tropes and OT fundamentalist legalism that goes nowhere.
Any deterrent effect his execution may have had has been (There's a string of words for you!) lost because he was not executed swiftly and painfully shortly after it happened.
Any deterrent effect his execution may have had has been (There's a string of words for you!) lost because he was not executed swiftly and painfully shortly after it happened.
If it was the policy of the government to execute all those who commit or attempt to commit murder then there would never be any such thing as a six year old who attempts to murder anyone. Such things simply would not happen in a just society. The question of whether one should execute 6 year old murderers would sound like crazy talk in a just society. There would be no such thing as public school teachers and there certainly wouldn't be any such thing as small children who attempt to murder them or anyone else. Indeed, in such a society, I'd suspect that most wouldn't even believe that it was possible for a six year old child to commit such a crime and, in such a society, they might well be correct about that, in which case you wouldn't execute 6 year olds for anything. It would be treated as some sort of accident and probably rightly so.
If it was the policy of the government to execute all those who commit or attempt to commit murder then there would never be any such thing as a six year old who attempts to murder anyone. Such things simply would not happen in a just society. The question of whether one should execute 6 year old murderers would sound like crazy talk in a just society. There would be no such thing as public school teachers and there certainly wouldn't be any such thing as small children who attempt to murder them or anyone else.
Indeed, in such a society, I'd suspect that most wouldn't even believe that it was possible for a six year old child to commit such a crime and, in such a society, they might well be correct about that, in which case you wouldn't execute 6 year olds for anything. It would be treated as some sort of accident and probably rightly so.
For some things, at least, but he wants it only if there's "100% proof of guilt" or "beyond reasonable doubt" or "proven beyond doubt," to use his words.
For some things, at least, but he wants it only if there's "100% proof of guilt" or "beyond reasonable doubt" or "proven beyond doubt," to use his words.
