Properly Enforcing the Death Penalty

[Arthur Brain]

Now you're implying that I said executing an innocent man is a good thing.

As is typical, you are adding nothing but confusion to the discussion.



Give us an example of "absolute proof."

Give us an example of when it could not be attained.



Gen 4:22.



You have no respect for scripture and no credibility when you appeal to your cartoon idea of it.



Please explain how modern lines of evidence could be presented without a witness.

You've been part of these conversations for a decade and still refuse to acknowledge even basic points that the other side believes.


Jesus was executed.



Nope. You refuse to acknowledge even the simplist things that the other side believes. When we say "witness," you hear "eyewitness," even though the distinction has been pointed out to you many times.

When we say good can arise from executing an innocent man, you insist on the opposite, even though the example of Jesus has been put forward before.

You refuse to even acknowledge ideas from the other side.



A justice system works primarily by deterrence.

By what means do you think justice works?


Your reasons are always idiotic.

If you're confused by what I write then don't read it. Your idea of 'no respect for scripture' really equates to not agreeing with you which can be dismissed. If the Bible does indeed advise to judge with discernment and encourages people to use their thinking capabilities then it stands to reason that what was good for bronze age tribes doesn't apply to now. You don't get to change the word witness to something else either as the Bible was hardly discussing DNA/forensics etc. All they had at the time was eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence.

There is no good that arises from killing an innocent man. The only possible argument that could be made is that steps are taken to ensure that it doesn't happen again.

 

[JudgeRightly]

In our current world, that would be a horrible idea. The misuse would be terrible.
DNA can get in many places for many reasons. DNA is not the perfect "witness".

Anything that can be used for righteous purposes can also be misused. I don't deny that. Saying it's a horrible idea simply because it might be misused isn't a very strong argument, RD, I know you can do better than that!

I've never claimed that DNA is "the perfect witness." but it is certainly a very strong witness, and hard for criminals to argue against.

 

[Right Divider]

Anything that can be used for righteous purposes can also be misused. I don't deny that. Saying it's a horrible idea simply because it might be misused isn't a very strong argument, RD, I know you can do better than that!

I've never claimed that DNA is "the perfect witness." but it is certainly a very strong witness, and hard for criminals to argue against.

I stand firmly by what I said.
In our current world, there is way too much personal information in the hands of corrupt governments. We don't need a complete DNA database to help fight crime.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You don't get to change the word witness to something else either as the Bible was hardly discussing DNA/forensics etc.

No one has changed the meaning, Arthur. You simply refuse to acknowledge that it means more than "eyewitness."

RSR: Eyewitnesses Not Needed for Execution | KGOV.com

kgov.com

Else, how in the world do you expect the woman in my second scenario to ever expect her rapist to be brought to justice? She was the only witness, according to your standard, and so no conviction could ever be made, for one witness is not enough, her witness could be false, and the blood under her nails, the scratches to the man's face, the piece of the man's robe, evidence, sure, but all circumstantial, not "absolute, indisputable evidence."

 

[JudgeRightly]

I stand firmly by what I said.

So what?

In our current world, there is way too much personal information in the hands of corrupt governments.

Nat'l Intelligence Deputy Director Quotes BEL | KGOV.com

kgov.com

We don't need a complete DNA database to help fight crime.

Bob Calls for DNA Database | KGOV.com

kgov.com

 

[Arthur Brain]

No one has changed the meaning, Arthur. You simply refuse to acknowledge that it means more than "eyewitness."

RSR: Eyewitnesses Not Needed for Execution | KGOV.com

kgov.com

Else, how in the world do you expect the woman in my second scenario to ever expect her rapist to be brought to justice? She was the only witness, according to your standard, and so no conviction could ever be made, for one witness is not enough, her witness could be false, and the blood under her nails, the scratches to the man's face, the piece of the man's robe, evidence, sure, but all circumstantial, not "absolute, indisputable evidence."

Exactly, it's circumstantial and as much as circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony is all that tribes in the bronze age had, the same doesn't apply today. These days we can test for DNA to match blood types to ascertain whether the blood under the woman's fingernails matches that of the man accused. The same with fabric, also security footage etc. There's no excuse to put people's lives on the line when we have the means at our disposal to determine things far more accurately than centuries past. It's just common sense.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Exactly, it's circumstantial and as much as circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony is all that tribes in the bronze age had, the same doesn't apply today.

Again, how would the woman have gotten justice if "witness" meant "eyewitness", if "two or three witnesses" was required?

How does that mean that "two or three witnesses" is not a good standard for today?

bronze age

As Stripe has pointed out multiple times already: Genesis 4:22.

These days we can test for DNA to match blood types to ascertain whether the blood under the woman's fingernails matches that of the man accused. The same with fabric, also security footage etc.

Do you think that one witness (be it eyewitness or other piece of evidence) is enough to establish guilt?

Why are you so opposed to "two or three witnesses shall establish a matter"? If two or three witnesses do, in fact, establish guilt or innocence, is that not good enough? Again, there are, as demonstrated above, some circumstances where "absolute, indisputable evidence" is nonexistent, and as such, according to your standard, no justice will be served, the criminal goes free, and the woman is left to deal with the trauma of being raped, and the fear of being raped again by the same man. On the other hand, if the system requires "two or three witnesses," then the woman can rest assured that the man who assaulted her will no longer be able to hurt her again, because of the evidence that is presented along with her testimony.

There's no excuse to put people's lives on the line when we have the means at our disposal to determine things far more accurately than centuries past.

No one is saying we should. Quite the opposite, in fact.

We advocate that judges make informed decisions based on the evidence, with a minimum of "two or three witnesses," since one witness is not enough to establish anything.

Why do you continue with your straw man arguments against us?

It's just common sense.

Fallacy.

Your scenario - one you've trotted out before I believe

Came up with it on the spot.

- is weak.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

What "just enough evidence" are you talking about that satisfies a secure conviction or at least enough to detain a suspect? Be specific.

That's what we've been asking you, Arthur.

What would you consider "absolute, indisputable evidence" in such a scenario that would bring about a conviction?

No, it isn't too high,

Yes, it is.

it should be the yardstick before putting a person to death.

Again, it would result in many cases being left unresolved, due to lack of "absolute, indisputable evidence."

Requiring absolute proof before executing someone doesn't equate to a laxity where other people are put in harms way.

What does "absolute, indisputable proof" look like in the proposed scenario, Arty? What evidence could the woman present that could not be disputed?

Again, with the Bible, use some discernment as it encourages.

I am. You aren't.

Tribes in the bronze age

Genesis 4:22

had no choice but to rely on the testimony of a few witnesses

You seem to mistakenly think that "two or three witnesses" just happened to arise out of necessity.

It was commanded by God Himself, Arthur, and Jesus Himself REINFORCED that standard. So did Paul. So did the author of Hebrews.

so there were hardly going to be passages describing all of the means that modern societies have in the present - ones that are far more reliable in determining the likelihood of guilt/innocence. There'd have been plenty of times where innocent people would have lost their lives for want of reliable proof so the logical thing to do is take advantage of those means at our disposal now.

Again, no one is saying we shouldn't. What I'm saying is that "two or three witnesses" applies just as well to modern times as it does ancient ones. "Absolute, indisputable evidence" isn't obtainable in most cases, but "two or three witnesses", is obtainable in most, and I do mean most, cases. And if there's only one witness, then obviously no case can be presented, because it is insufficient on its own.

Your scenarios simply don't work in this regard.

But you won't explain why. You simply say they don't and expect me to accept it.

With the science and technology we have today we can determine through DNA and forensics etc whether a suspect is indeed at the scene and the most likely culprit.

DNA evidence is only one witness. Security camera footage is only one witness. Put them together, and NOW you have a case. If all you have is one or the other, and you try to convict someone, then they'll just sit there and laugh, because you don't have enough evidence.

There's no excuse for not doing so when people's lives and livelihoods are at stake.

Supra.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Again, how would the woman have gotten justice if "witness" meant "eyewitness", if "two or three witnesses" was required?

How does that mean that "two or three witnesses" is not a good standard for today?



As Stripe has pointed out multiple times already: Genesis 4:22.



Do you think that one witness (be it eyewitness or other piece of evidence) is enough to establish guilt?

Why are you so opposed to "two or three witnesses shall establish a matter"? If two or three witnesses do, in fact, establish guilt or innocence, is that not good enough? Again, there are, as demonstrated above, some circumstances where "absolute, indisputable evidence" is nonexistent, and as such, according to your standard, no justice will be served, the criminal goes free, and the woman is left to deal with the trauma of being raped, and the fear of being raped again by the same man. On the other hand, if the system requires "two or three witnesses," then the woman can rest assured that the man who assaulted her will no longer be able to hurt her again, because of the evidence that is presented along with her testimony.



No one is saying we should. Quite the opposite, in fact.

We advocate that judges make informed decisions based on the evidence, with a minimum of "two or three witnesses," since one witness is not enough to establish anything.

Why do you continue with your straw man arguments against us?



Fallacy.



Came up with it on the spot.



Saying it doesn't make it so.



That's what we've been asking you, Arthur.

What would you consider "absolute, indisputable evidence" in such a scenario that would bring about a conviction?



Yes, it is.



Again, it would result in many cases being left unresolved, due to lack of "absolute, indisputable evidence."



What does "absolute, indisputable proof" look like in the proposed scenario, Arty? What evidence could the woman present that could not be disputed?



I am. You aren't.



Genesis 4:22



You seem to mistakenly think that "two or three witnesses" just happened to arise out of necessity.

It was commanded by God Himself, Arthur, and Jesus Himself REINFORCED that standard. So did Paul. So did the author of Hebrews.



Again, no one is saying we shouldn't. What I'm saying is that "two or three witnesses" applies just as well to modern times as it does ancient ones. "Absolute, indisputable evidence" isn't obtainable in most cases, but "two or three witnesses", is obtainable in most, and I do mean most, cases. And if there's only one witness, then obviously no case can be presented, because it is insufficient on its own.



But you won't explain why. You simply say they don't and expect me to accept it.



DNA evidence is only one witness. Security camera footage is only one witness. Put them together, and NOW you have a case. If all you have is one or the other, and you try to convict someone, then they'll just sit there and laugh, because you don't have enough evidence.



Supra.

I've already explained that witness testimony included circumstantial evidence so not necessarily two to three eyewitnesses. What else did people in the bronze age have available to them? It's not a good standard for today because we have far more reliable means of determining evidence and unless you want to live back in the bronze age you should be glad of that.

Of course I don't think that one eyewitness or a few along with some pieces of circumstantial evidence is enough to establish guilt. If it was then it would be open to all sorts of abuse as it could well have been back in the bronze age. Heck, say there's an unpopular member of the tribe and a coupla people set him up by accusing him of rape and place some circumstantial evidence that can't be properly examined but fits their narrative of the "crime". That testimony is apparently enough to send the guy to the afterlife...in no way is that or should be acceptable nowadays when we have far more effective and reliable means of ascertaining evidence.

I've been forthright on the issue as to what should constitute evidence, at least in the present. You presume that directives given to bronze age tribes and centuries ago is what should be utilized today despite the fact that we don't live in communes anymore and have far more tools to establish guilt/innocence. If God does indeed abhor the shedding of innocent blood and encourages to judge with discernment then it hardly requires much in the way of common sense to realize that we should be using them. If you're happy with risking innocent people being put to death because you want to limit the resources we have available that folk in the past didn't have then that's your call.

It's also one that doesn't in any way satisfy justice however.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I've already explained that witness testimony included circumstantial evidence so not necessarily two to three eyewitnesses. What else did people in the bronze age have available to them?

The same thing we have today.

Evidence. Testimony. Logic. Reason.

It's not a good standard for today because we have far more reliable means of determining evidence and unless you want to live back in the bronze age you should be glad of that.

You still seem to be arguing something other than what we're talking about.

You say "two or three witnesses" is not good because we have more reliable way of discovering evidence.

I'm not seeing the correlation.

Having more reliable means of discovering (determining is the wrong word here) evidence means that the standard of "two or three witnesses" would be easier to achieve. Why raise the bar to "absolute, indisputable evidence", which is much harder to achieve, even with modern resources? The only reason I can think of is that you want criminals to have an easier time of getting away with their crimes, which I'm sure you would deny, yes?

In other words, modern technology makes obtaining evidence easier, and more reliable.

We're talking about the amount of evidence, and you're talking about the quality.

Making evidence easier to acquire is a quantity matter, not a quality matter.

Of course I don't think that one eyewitness or a few along with some pieces of circumstantial evidence is enough to establish guilt. If it was then it would be open to all sorts of abuse as it could well have been back in the bronze age.

Genesis 4:22.:

Heck, say there's an unpopular member of the tribe and a coupla people set him up by accusing him of rape and place some circumstantial evidence that can't be properly examined but fits their narrative of the "crime". That testimony is apparently enough to send the guy to the afterlife...in no way is that or should be acceptable nowadays when we have far more effective and reliable means of ascertaining evidence.

And it still happens to this day. People are still set up to take the fall for crimes they did not commit, and it's usually done through apparently "absolute, indisputable evidence," at least on the surface.

The standard of "two or three witnesses" means that that "absolute, indisputable evidence" is not enough to convict. More evidence is required to corroborate that evidence. The judge, in such a situation, should investigate after such a claim is made. And if two witnesses are found to the contrary, then the ones who made the false claim should be punished how they sought to have their victim punished.

I've been forthright on the issue as to what should constitute evidence, at least in the present.

PROVIDE A THEORETICAL EXAMPLE, from the first scenario above, that would constitute "absolute, indisputable evidence," such that the man who assaulted the woman could be found, tried, found guilty, and punished based on it.

You presume that directives given to bronze age

Genesis 4:22

tribes and centuries ago

Moral standards do not change, no matter how much time passes, Arty.

is what should be utilized today despite the fact that we don't live in communes anymore

So what?

Again, moral standards do not change based on time, location, or circumstances.

and have far more tools to establish guilt/innocence.

Which means that finding evidence regarding a crime should be much easier, and such crimes should be solved quicker, without needing to raise the bar on the quality of the evidence, because more evidence can be found in the same amount of time.

Direct evidence, circumstantial evidence. Both are important, and taken into consideration with "two or three witnesses." as I stated before, the judge should weigh the evidence. In some cases, only two direct evidence witnesses will be needed, in other cases, three circumstantial witnesses will suffice. The judge should be using his discretion in all cases.

If God does indeed abhor the shedding of innocent blood and encourages to judge with discernment then it hardly requires much in the way of common sense to realize that we should be using them.

Still falsely accusing us of saying we shouldn't. You should stop now.

you want to limit the resources we have available that folk in the past didn't have then

No, we don't. We want it to be easier for a judge to determine if someone has committed a crime, and punish the convicted criminal.

It's also one that doesn't in any way satisfy justice however.

Making it easier to punish criminals doesn't satisfy justice?

 

[Stripe]

If you're confused by what I write then don't read it.

Yeah. Now read what I wrote again and notice that I in no way said that I was confused, but that you contribute nothing but confusion.

Big difference.

You contribute nothing but confusion. Your every response is designed to present words that look like ours in the worst possible way.

Your idea of 'no respect for scripture' really equates to not agreeing with you

Nope. You can read the words for yourself. They say: "Execute without mercy."

If the Bible does indeed advise to judge with discernment and encourages people to use their thinking capabilities then it stands to reason that what was good for bronze age tribes doesn't apply to now.

Gen. 4:22.

You don't get to change the word witness to something else either as the Bible was hardly discussing DNA/forensics etc. All they had at the time was eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence.

You know nothing about what those words mean, what scripture teaches, or the difference between then and now when it comes to determining guilt.

Witness does not mean eyewitness. Exodus 22:13 shows that it need not even mean a person, although a person is required to present evidence. But all you do is insist that witness must mean eyewitness or "circumstantial evidence," once again ignoring the clear teaching of the Bible.

People of that time had the same capacity to determine guilt as we do through access to evidence and testimony, as well as application of reason, logic and cross-examination.

Your appeal to "DNA" and "forensics" is simply a distraction. Yes, our tools are more advanced. However, right judgement is always the determining factor in a trial. Technology would be a distant fourth or fifth behind other issues.

There is no good that arises from killing an innocent man.

And once again you present a lie. I in no way said that good will most certainly follow from executing an innocent man, only that it is possible. Nothing good can ever arise from letting a guilty man go free.

Also, Jesus was executed.

Clearly you believe that His work was all in vain. Or that His actions were evil.

The only possible argument that could be made is that steps are taken to ensure that it doesn't happen again.

Yip.

That was one of the things I had in mind and one of the nuances that might arise in this conversation were you not so desperate to keep it black and white.

Under the umbrella of a good justice system, the discovery that an innocent man had been executed would bring great pressure upon the judge, hopefully leading to him becoming better at his job rather than being fired. Also, it would be a great lesson for all others in his position.

 

[Stripe]

Exactly, it's circumstantial and as much as circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony is all that tribes in the bronze age had, the same doesn't apply today. These days we can test for DNA to match blood types to ascertain whether the blood under the woman's fingernails matches that of the man accused. The same with fabric, also security footage etc. There's no excuse to put people's lives on the line when we have the means at our disposal to determine things far more accurately than centuries past. It's just common sense.

This response shows that you have not put a single second of thought into this discussion. Improved ability to determine guilt and innocence does nothing to advance your agenda, which is to ensure that rapists and murderers walk free.

 

[Stripe]

Here's a recent one from over here. Granted, the guy admitted to the heinous crimes but given the evidence against him he didn't really have much choice. A sickening case to be sure:

And you want him kept alive, with his victims and their families paying for his food and accommodation.

 

[ThePartyPooper]

This response shows that you have not put a single second of thought into this discussion. . . .

And he won't. Arthur is like a Marxist automaton, who just responds without thinking. Once in awhile he will transform into a Marxist lawyer who does not care whether the side he is arguing is good or bad or right or wrong, he will just try to make an argument to win. He is like a lawyer who is representing the most disgusting serial killer in history. He still wants to win.

 

[Right Divider]

So what?

Nat'l Intelligence Deputy Director Quotes BEL | KGOV.com

kgov.com

Bob Calls for DNA Database | KGOV.com

kgov.com

A complete database of DNA does not go far enough we need stop crime before it happens. We need the government to confiscate all: guns, knives, forks, ice picks, hammers, crowbars, tire irons, etc. Anything that can be used to commit a crime.
We need the government to put GPS trackers on all people, so that we can track their whereabouts at all times.
We need the government to track all financial transactions, so that no funny business can go on there.
Then we need to establish a department of pre-crime to detect crimes before they happen!

 

[Derf]

Yeah.

We need to be experts in right and wrong.

But liberals think that endless rules and regulations are the answer.

As long as they are allowed to skirt the rules and regulations.

 

[Derf]

And the person responsible should be held accountable. The judge.

And the penalty for purposely prosecuting an innocent man should be the same penalty the man would have received.

Deuteronomy 19:18-19 (KJV) 18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, [if] the witness [be] a false witness, [and] hath testified falsely against his brother; 19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.

That would help slow down false convictions.

 

[Derf]

A complete database of DNA does not go far enough we need stop crime before it happens. We need the government to confiscate all: guns, knives, forks, ice picks, hammers, crowbars, tire irons, etc. Anything that can be used to commit a crime.
We need the government to put GPS trackers on all people, so that we can track their whereabouts at all times.
We need the government to track all financial transactions, so that no funny business can go on there.
Then we need to establish a department of pre-crime to detect crimes before they happen!

Remember that part of the discussion is about evil prosecutors and judges, which are government agents, so the government has ti give up guns and knives and wear gps trackers.

 

[ok doser]

And the penalty for purposely prosecuting an innocent man should be the same penalty the man would have received.

Deuteronomy 19:18-19 (KJV) 18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, [if] the witness [be] a false witness, [and] hath testified falsely against his brother; 19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.

That would help slow down false convictions.

False witness and false accuser.

 

[Derf]

False witness and false accuser.

They are one and the same.

 

[ok doser]

They are one and the same.

I was making a distinction between the false witness and the prosecutor who wasn't a witness but accepted the testimony of the false witness and propagated it as truth.