Properly Enforcing the Death Penalty

[Derf]

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.

Yes, I understand, but if he propagates the false witness testimony as truth, he becomes another false witness. That's what accuser means--someone who brings testimony against.

 

[Rusha]

Your standard is too high, and would result in too many criminals being set free, because all they need to do is provide enough evidence that brings other evidence that they committed a crime into question.

Murderers being set free is no worse than than the innocent being put to death. For such a permanent punishment, guilt needs to be indisputable ,,,

Of course that would mean upping the standards of both the judges and jurors, required evidence, reporting requirements (as in holding publications responsible for sloppy or intentional reporting of biased or fake *evidence*).

 

[Yorzhik]

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.

I agree with you. I don't see a problem getting the DNA of a convicted criminal, but not of anyone innocent. The database might not be big, but it would be big enough to deter crime.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The same thing we have today.

Evidence. Testimony. Logic. Reason.



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.



Genesis 4:22.:



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.



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.



Genesis 4:22



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



So what?

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



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.



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



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.



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

No they didn't JR which is the entire point, certainly where it comes to the quality of evidence. All they had was eyewitness and circumstantial evidence and given the time then judgements could only be made on those alone. So a directive for the time is all well and good but in a time where we have methods available that can quantify the accuracy and veracity of the evidence then it's irresponsible as all get out not to take advantage of them. It's not a game, people's lives and livelihoods are at stake.

How you equate wanting a higher bar to establish absolute guilt before taking a persons life with wanting criminals to get away with their crimes is frankly, anyone's guess. Arguing that that there has to be absolute proof before execution isn't the same as letting those suspected walk away free. Not at all.

Why you keep bringing up Gen 4:22 is also anyone's guess. What on earth is your point?

Provide a case where someone innocent has been set up through indisputable evidence? There obviously isn't one as the statement itself is oxymoronic. Frankly, it shouldn't be left to one person to make a ruling, it should be the evidence that counts as human discretion is fallible and a judge could make an incorrect ruling with the best of intentions.

A theoretical example? His blood being found under the woman's fingernails with DNA matches. The use of force from the man that can be determined through medical evidence, obvious indications of bruising during the struggle etc. Even if he wore a condom that didn't split his DNA can still be found believe it or not in certain areas. Security footage.

Nobody is arguing that morality changes over time JR but failing to take advantage of methods that are more effective than centuries past where it comes to determining guilt/innocence is ironically for your position - immoral. There's no excuse for failing to utilize them when people's lives are at stake and reducing the possibility of innocent blood being shed. There'd be many a person who was wrongfully convicted and now six feet under if your ideal was enacted. Case in point - a young man over here was falsely accused of rape not so long ago and eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence was enough to put him in custody without bail. It seemed a pretty strong case until security footage placed him at a completely different scene as he'd maintained when it was finally unearthed. It proved him innocent beyond a shadow of doubt.

Again, the responsibility shouldn't rely on one person to make a ruling.

Heck, centuries ago the 'medical practitioners' of the time used to use leeches as a cure to all and sundry but I bet you embrace the advancements we have in medical practice nowadays, right?

 

[Arthur Brain]

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.

You are off the planet...

 

[Arthur Brain]

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.

Oh, the irony. You have to be especially dumb to think that I'd want murderers and rapists to walk free, either that or just flat out dishonest. Either way you're a waste of time.

 

[ok doser]

Murderers being set free is no worse than than the innocent being put to death.

At what ratio?

1:1?
1:1000?

Is a single innocent person being put to death worse than a thousand murderers being set free?

 

[Stripe]

All they had was eyewitness and circumstantial evidence and given the time then judgements could only be made on those alone.

Nope.

The extent of your apathy about the quality of a discussion is exposed when you keep ignoring the things that expose the paucity of your analyses.

Try again. Judges have always had access to the most important tools for assessing guilt and innocence. Technology is a long way down the list.

But you'll just go on insisting that the only way to characterize the non-tech tools is "eyewitnesses" and "circumstantial evidence," implying that even today's judges do not have reason, logic, cross-examination, etc.

So a directive for the time is all well and good but in a time where we have methods available that can quantify the accuracy and veracity of the evidence then it's irresponsible as all get out not to take advantage of them. It's not a game, people's lives and livelihoods are at stake.

Did someone say that modern inventions must not be used?

Spoiler alert: Nope.

Once again it is Brain making things up.

How you equate wanting a higher bar to establish absolute guilt before taking a persons life with wanting criminals to get away with their crimes is frankly, anyone's guess. Arguing that that there has to be absolute proof before execution isn't the same as letting those suspected walk away free. Not at all.

It's because your goal is to see murderers and rapists walk free. That's your goal.

Why you keep bringing up Gen 4:22 is also anyone's guess. What on earth is your point?

Gen 4:22
Exodus 22:13

We provide scripture so you have something else to ignore.

it shouldn't be left to one person to make a ruling, it should be the evidence that counts as human discretion is fallible and a judge could make an incorrect ruling with the best of intentions.

Please explain how the evidence is going to self-assemble into a case, question witnesses, and determine guilt and innocence.

Thanks.

A theoretical example? His blood being found under the woman's fingernails with DNA matches. The use of force from the man that can be determined through medical evidence, obvious indications of bruising during the struggle etc. Even if he wore a condom that didn't split his DNA can still be found believe it or not in certain areas. Security footage.

Oh. So circumstantial evidence is OK now?

Nobody is arguing that morality changes over time JR but failing to take advantage of methods that are more effective than centuries past where it comes to determining guilt/innocence is ironically for your position - immoral.

Please show one example of someone saying that modern methods should not be used.

What? You can't?

We know. Because you're a liar with no interest in a sensible discussion.

There's no excuse for failing to utilize them when people's lives are at stake and reducing the possibility of innocent blood being shed.

Please show one example of someone saying that modern methods should not be used.

What? You can't?

We know. Because you're a liar with no interest in a sensible discussion.

There'd be many a person who was wrongfully convicted and now six feet under if your ideal was enacted.

Please show one example of someone saying that modern methods should not be used.

What? You can't?

We know. Because you're a liar with no interest in a sensible discussion.

Case in point - a young man over here was falsely accused of rape not so long ago and eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence was enough to put him in custody without bail. It seemed a pretty strong case until security footage placed him at a completely different scene as he'd maintained when it was finally unearthed. It proved him innocent beyond a shadow of doubt.

Please show one example of someone saying that modern methods should not be used.

What? You can't?

We know. Because you're a liar with no interest in a sensible discussion.

Again, the responsibility shouldn't rely on one person to make a ruling.

Yeah. The evidence should sit at the bench, bang the gavel and announce the decision.

:|

Heck, centuries ago the 'medical practitioners' of the time used to use leeches as a cure to all and sundry but I bet you embrace the advancements we have in medical practice nowadays, right?

Please show one example of someone saying that modern methods should not be used.

What? You can't?

We know. Because you're a liar with no interest in a sensible discussion.

Oh, the irony. You have to be especially dumb to think that I'd want murderers and rapists to walk free, either that or just flat out dishonest. Either way you're a waste of time.

You want murderers and rapists to walk free.

That's your agenda.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Nope.

The extent of your apathy about the quality of a discussion is exposed when you keep ignoring the things that expose the paucity of your analyses.

Try again. Judges have always had access to the most important tools for assessing guilt and innocence. Technology is a long way down the list.

But you'll just go on insisting that the only way to characterize the non-tech tools is "eyewitnesses" and "circumstantial evidence," implying that even today's judges do not have reason, logic, cross-examination, etc.



Did someone say that modern inventions must not be used?

Spoiler alert: Nope.

Once again it is Brain making things up.



It's because your goal is to see murderers and rapists walk free. That's your goal.



Gen 4:22
Exodus 22:13

We provide scripture so you have something else to ignore.



Please explain how the evidence is going to self-assemble into a case, question witnesses, and determine guilt and innocence.

Thanks.



Oh. So circumstantial evidence is OK now?



Please show one example of someone saying that modern methods should not be used.

What? You can't?

We know. Because you're a liar with no interest in a sensible discussion.



Please show one example of someone saying that modern methods should not be used.

What? You can't?

We know. Because you're a liar with no interest in a sensible discussion.



Please show one example of someone saying that modern methods should not be used.

What? You can't?

We know. Because you're a liar with no interest in a sensible discussion.



Please show one example of someone saying that modern methods should not be used.

What? You can't?

We know. Because you're a liar with no interest in a sensible discussion.



Yeah. The evidence should sit at the bench, bang the gavel and announce the decision.

:|



Please show one example of someone saying that modern methods should not be used.

What? You can't?

We know. Because you're a liar with no interest in a sensible discussion.



You want murderers and rapists to walk free.

That's your agenda.

Anyone who accuses me of having an agenda as you describe has shown themselves to be a complete liar and/or utterly thick. You are a waste of time and if you want to waste your own some more then crack on with it. You're getting no more responses from me. You are frankly, pathetic.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No they didn't JR

They didn't have evidence, witnesses, logic, and reason?

Now I KNOW you're trolling. Or just plain stupid, I can't tell which.

which is the entire point, certainly where it comes to the quality of evidence. All they had was eyewitness and circumstantial evidence

So "eyewitnesses" and "circumstantial evidence" don't qualify as evidence or witnesses?

Got it.

And they didn't have logic or reason?

Got it. You apparently think that the ancients were complete idiots who couldn't string two syllables together...

and given the time then judgements could only be made on those alone.

So they couldn't cross examine witnesses? Compare evidence to other evidence?

Got it.

So a directive for the time is all well and good

Again, moral standards don't change over time. "Two or three witnesses" is a moral standard.

but in a time where we have methods available that can quantify the accuracy and veracity of the evidence

And you think they couldn't do the same back then without such methods?

Got it.

then it's irresponsible as all get out not to take advantage of them.

Please quote anyone here who said we shouldn't take advantage of such things.

It's not a game, people's lives and livelihoods are at stake.

No one said otherwise.

How you equate wanting a higher bar to establish absolute guilt before taking a persons life with wanting criminals to get away with their crimes is frankly, anyone's guess.

The good thing is you don't have to guess, because I explained it clearly. Multiple times, even, within this very thread.

If you're still having trouble, go back and read my posts again.

Arguing that that there has to be absolute proof before execution isn't the same as letting those suspected walk away free. Not at all.

That's what the result is.

Why you keep bringing up Gen 4:22 is also anyone's guess. What on earth is your point?

Have you tried reading it? Maybe you could figure it out on your own.

Provide a case where someone innocent has been set up through indisputable evidence? There obviously isn't one as the statement itself is oxymoronic.

So you're arguing that evidence can't be presented in such a way that it has the appearance of being absolute and indisputable?

Because it's not hard to imagine, at least for me.

Frankly, it shouldn't be left to one person to make a ruling,

Why not?

If you alone were accountable for deciding whether someone is determined innocent or guilty, and is let go, or put to death, based on your decision, would that not motivate you to investigate to the best of your ability, to determine if the person is innocent or if he is guilty, knowing that if you missed something, it could mean the difference between the person being set free or being put to death?

That's a long question, so let me shorten it for you:
Does a single point of accountability usually rightly motivate?

it should be the evidence that counts as human discretion is fallible

First you say "the Bible says to use discretion," now you're saying, we should ignore human discretion because it's fallible?

and a judge could make an incorrect ruling with the best of intentions.

So therefore, instead of one fallible human making a decision, which could potentially be the wrong one, you want multiple fallible human beings trying to come to an agreement on whether something is "absolute, indisputable evidence"?

Have you ever tried to get even two people to completely agree on something controversial? Let alone more than that....

A theoretical example? His blood being found under the woman's fingernails with DNA matches.

What if he had an identical twin brother?

Also, only one witness. Not enough to determine a matter.

The use of force from the man that can be determined through medical evidence,

Circumstantial evidence at best. Also, only one witness. Not enough to determine a matter. Even combined with the above, not enough to convict.

obvious indications of bruising during the struggle etc.

Supra.

Even if he wore a condom that didn't split his DNA can still be found believe it or not in certain areas.

Same as before, and a single witness.

Maybe you have a case, but certainly not "absolute, indisputable evidence."

Security footage.

Can be faked, doctored. And it may not even show the man's face. Also circumstantial evidence.

In other words, definitely disputable.

-

As I said above. You have a case, but you don't have "absolute, indisputable evidence." Thus, the criminal cannot be convicted, based on your standard, but can be convicted and sentenced, based on mine.

Do you see the problem yet?

Nobody is arguing that morality changes over time JR

Yes, you are, by saying that "two or three witnesses" is no longer good enough.

God set a standard, and that standard was kept throughout 1600 years or so of history It did not change at all, and Jesus Himself reinforced that standard.

but failing to take advantage of methods that are more effective than centuries past where it comes to determining guilt/innocence is ironically for your position - immoral. There's no excuse for failing to utilize them when people's lives are at stake and reducing the possibility of innocent blood being shed.

Please quote anyone here who said we shouldn't use such methods.

There'd be many a person who was wrongfully convicted and now six feet under if your ideal was enacted.

Why?

As I showed you above, your standard of "absolute, indisputable evidence" would not be able to convict the rapist, whereas my standard of "two or three witnesses" would be more than sufficient to convict him.

That's at least one more than yours.

Case in point - a young man over here was falsely accused of rape not so long ago and eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence was enough to put him in custody without bail. It seemed a pretty strong case until security footage placed him at a completely different scene as he'd maintained when it was finally unearthed. It proved him innocent beyond a shadow of doubt.

Thank you for answering your own question and contradicting yourself:

Provide a case where someone innocent has been set up through indisputable evidence? There obviously isn't one...

Again, the responsibility shouldn't rely on one person to make a ruling.

Because you say so?

So what, we just let the accused go free, because otherwise a fallible human might make a mistake and wrongfully convict or exonerate him?

Unless your agenda is to let the criminal go free anyways, in which case your argument totally makes sense.

Heck, centuries ago the 'medical practitioners' of the time used to use leeches as a cure to all and sundry

Not sure what that has to do with criminal justice, but shall I remind you that God gave Israel the first known laws concerning quarantining the sick, and that such rules, up until the great flinch of 2020 when everyone lost their minds over a simple flu virus, were widely known to be completely valid?

That was 3500 years ago, roughly. They still hold true today.

So what's your point, other than obfuscation?

but I bet you embrace the advancements we have in medical practice nowadays, right?

Again, how is this at all relevant to the topic, which is criminal justice, not best medical practices?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Anyone who accuses me of having an agenda as you describe

... is only using his brain, of which you have half, and using logic and reason to eliminate non-possiblities, based on the evidence.

has shown themselves to be a complete liar and/or utterly thick.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

You are a waste of time

Only to you, because you have no argument, and don't want to let reason persuade you of the truth.

and if you want to waste your own some more then crack on with it.

He's not wasting anyone's time.

You're getting no more responses from me.

"You guys are mean! I'm going to take my ball and go home!" said the petulant child to the other children on the playground when he was told he was in the wrong.

You are frankly, pathetic.

Look everyone! Arty has been reduced to ad hominems again! Let's all laugh and point our fingers at him!

 

[Arthur Brain]

They didn't have evidence, witnesses, logic, and reason?

Now I KNOW you're trolling. Or just plain stupid, I can't tell which.



So "eyewitnesses" and "circumstantial evidence" don't qualify as evidence or witnesses?

Got it.

And they didn't have logic or reason?

Got it. You apparently think that the ancients were complete idiots who couldn't string two syllables together...



So they couldn't cross examine witnesses? Compare evidence to other evidence?

Got it.



Again, moral standards don't change over time. "Two or three witnesses" is a moral standard.



And you think they couldn't do the same back then without such methods?

Got it.



Please quote anyone here who said we shouldn't take advantage of such things.



No one said otherwise.



The good thing is you don't have to guess, because I explained it clearly. Multiple times, even, within this very thread.

If you're still having trouble, go back and read my posts again.



That's what the result is.



Have you tried reading it? Maybe you could figure it out on your own.



So you're arguing that evidence can't be presented in such a way that it has the appearance of being absolute and indisputable?

Because it's not hard to imagine, at least for me.



Why not?

If you alone were accountable for deciding whether someone is determined innocent or guilty, and is let go, or put to death, based on your decision, would that not motivate you to investigate to the best of your ability, to determine if the person is innocent or if he is guilty, knowing that if you missed something, it could mean the difference between the person being set free or being put to death?

That's a long question, so let me shorten it for you:
Does a single point of accountability usually rightly motivate?



First you say "the Bible says to use discretion," now you're saying, we should ignore human discretion because it's fallible?



So therefore, instead of one fallible human making a decision, which could potentially be the wrong one, you want multiple fallible human beings trying to come to an agreement on whether something is "absolute, indisputable evidence"?

Have you ever tried to get even two people to completely agree on something controversial? Let alone more than that....



What if he had an identical twin brother?

Also, only one witness. Not enough to determine a matter.



Circumstantial evidence at best. Also, only one witness. Not enough to determine a matter. Even combined with the above, not enough to convict.



Supra.



Same as before, and a single witness.

Maybe you have a case, but certainly not "absolute, indisputable evidence."



Can be faked, doctored. And it may not even show the man's face. Also circumstantial evidence.

In other words, definitely disputable.

-

As I said above. You have a case, but you don't have "absolute, indisputable evidence." Thus, the criminal cannot be convicted, based on your standard, but can be convicted and sentenced, based on mine.

Do you see the problem yet?



Yes, you are, by saying that "two or three witnesses" is no longer good enough.

God set a standard, and that standard was kept throughout 1600 years or so of history It did not change at all, and Jesus Himself reinforced that standard.



Please quote anyone here who said we shouldn't use such methods.



Why?

As I showed you above, your standard of "absolute, indisputable evidence" would not be able to convict the rapist, whereas my standard of "two or three witnesses" would be more than sufficient to convict him.

That's at least one more than yours.



Thank you for answering your own question and contradicting yourself:

Provide a case where someone innocent has been set up through indisputable evidence? There obviously isn't one...

Because you say so?

So what, we just let the accused go free, because otherwise a fallible human might make a mistake and wrongfully convict or exonerate him?

Unless your agenda is to let the criminal go free anyways, in which case your argument totally makes sense.



Not sure what that has to do with criminal justice, but shall I remind you that God gave Israel the first known laws concerning quarantining the sick, and that such rules, up until the great flinch of 2020 when everyone lost their minds over a simple flu virus, were widely known to be completely valid?

That was 3500 years ago, roughly. They still hold true today.

So what's your point, other than obfuscation?



Again, how is this at all relevant to the topic, which is criminal justice, not best medical practices?

If you can't recognize context which was actually qualified with my post then that's not trolling on my part, it's a failure of reading on yours. Of course they had logic and reason but they were severely limited in how it could be applied in comparison to today. Why does this continually need to be explained?

You insist that we have to adhere to directives given at the time where there was nothing much else but circumstantial and personal testimony available to the tribes at the time. In the modern age where we have way more effective ways of determining the likelihood to the point of proving absolute innocence/guilt then there's no logical or moral reason not to use them to the hilt, especially if a person's life is on the line.

Your myopic view that an insistence on absolute guilt before taking someone's life equates to letting suspects go free is a ridiculous conclusion of your own making. Does it really need explaining to you as to why?

I've read the verse thanks:

Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of[a] bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain’s sister was Naamah.

And?

It's a lot harder to fabricate evidence of the sort required to ascertain guilt nowadays as you must surely know? What, do you think legal processes don't comb through it with utmost stringency or something?

I wouldn't agree to be a judge under your parameters, not by any stretch and nor should I or anyone else be forced to be one under the same either. If someone's life hangs in the balance then they deserve better than for it to be determined by a single, fallible human.

The strongest cases in court are determined by substantial evidence and that's more than circumstantial/hearsay.

Sometimes cases that at first have seemingly overwhelming evidence can be overturned further down the line when new/unexpected evidence transpires. So, even nowadays with the preponderance of far greater means of determining the likelihood of guilt it still needs to be measured. You do realize that security footage can be checked as to whether it's been doctored though, right?

Your mistake is presuming that because absolute proof should be required before executing someone means letting them go free if such isn't determined. If I were forced to be a judge under your system then if there wasn't such proof to absolutely determine guilt of heinous crime but establish likelihood of it then I'd sentence them to jail until such was cemented or further evidence came to light that cast doubt on the conviction and possible exoneration. Okay, under you system I prob wouldn't be allowed to in which case I'd just resign, be sacked or whatever...

If you're referring to Covid 19 as a 'flu virus' then your ignorance is astounding, not too surprising and nor did it have anything to do with my point anyway. We take advantage of all sorts of modern developments and such should be applied to law and thankfully is.

 

[Arthur Brain]

... is only using his brain, of which you have half, and using logic and reason to eliminate non-possiblities, based on the evidence.



Saying it doesn't make it so.



Only to you, because you have no argument, and don't want to let reason persuade you of the truth.



He's not wasting anyone's time.



"You guys are mean! I'm going to take my ball and go home!" said the petulant child to the other children on the playground when he was told he was in the wrong.



Look everyone! Arty has been reduced to ad hominems again! Let's all laugh and point our fingers at him!

Ironic that you yourself are reduced to childish ad homs and immaturity here.

Anyone who says I have an agenda whereby I would want rapists and murderers to walk free is either a complete liar and/or thick. You'd have to be completely bereft of honesty or critical thinking skills to construe that from my opposing position regarding the DP. Not that it should have needed to be explained but it's covered in my response to you above.

 

[Derf]

Look everyone! Arty has been reduced to ad hominems again! Let's all laugh and point our fingers at him!

"Again"? Wouldn't that require that he had stopped using ad hominems at one time?

 

[Arthur Brain]

"Again"? Wouldn't that require that he had stopped using ad hominems at one time?

Some people confuse observations with ad homs. In no way do I support or have an "agenda" where I would want murderers and rapists to walk free or given any reason for such a contention. Those that claim so are willfully dishonest or have a rock in their head or possibly both.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If you can't recognize context which was actually qualified with my post

You stated and then asked:

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?

To which I responded:

The same thing we have today.

Evidence. Testimony. Logic. Reason.

You then said:

No they didn't JR which is the entire point, certainly where it comes to the quality of evidence.

So what context am I not recognizing when I challenged you on your answer, which was a denial that they had evidence, testimony, reason, and logic, by saying:

They didn't have evidence, witnesses, logic, and reason?

Now I KNOW you're trolling. Or just plain stupid, I can't tell which.

How are you not trolling or just plain stupid?

then that's not trolling on my part, it's a failure of reading on yours.

I can read just fine, thank you.

You're the one denying that ancient Israelites had evidence, testimony, reason, and logic, are you not?

Of course they had logic and reason

So you're retracting your denial then?

but they were severely limited in how it could be applied in comparison to today.

So what?

Why does that make any difference to how many witnesses are needed to establish a matter?

Why does this continually need to be explained?

Continually?

You haven't even begun to explain why advancements in forensics should mean that we replace the standard of evidence needed for convictions.

You insist that we have to adhere to directives given at the time where there was nothing much else but circumstantial and personal testimony available to the tribes at the time.

No.

What I insist upon is that we adhere to the standard given by God for the number of witnesses needed to determine guilt or innocence, because His standard is good. Trying to improve upon it is evil, aside from being unnecessary.

In the modern age where we have way more effective ways of determining the likelihood to the point of proving absolute innocence/guilt then there's no logical or moral reason not to use them to the hilt, especially if a person's life is on the line.

Please quote anyone in this thread saying we shouldn't use modern techniques. Oh wait, you can't, because no one has.

Your myopic view that an insistence on absolute guilt before taking someone's life equates to letting suspects go free is a ridiculous conclusion of your own making. Does it really need explaining to you as to why?

God says that a matter is established based on two or three witnesses.

Why do you need "absolute guilt," when God says "two or three witnesses" is enough?

I've read the verse thanks:

Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of[a] bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain’s sister was Naamah.

And?

Yay, he can read!

Now compare it to what we were citing it in response.

It's a lot harder to fabricate evidence of the sort required to ascertain guilt nowadays as you must surely know? What, do you think legal processes doesn't comb through it with utmost stringency or something?

No, current legal processes comb through evidence with utmost stringency. They simply cannot, due to the sheer number of cases that are continually being added to the docket.

They simply don't have the time to get to all of them, because of how many there are. And that's caused by, among other things, lack of appropriate punishments for criminals (lack of deterrent), and too high of a standard for evidence ("beyond reasonable doubt").

For example:

"Your Case is Closed, Don’t Call Here Any More": Most Rapes in New York City Went Unsolved in 2020

"To see the values ‘courtesy, professionalism and respect’ on every police car is an insult to my experience.”

gothamist.com

I wouldn't agree to be a judge under your parameters,

That's obvious... Even if you wanted to be, you aren't qualified to be a judge. You don't know the difference between right and wrong.

not by any stretch and nor should I or anyone else be forced to be one under the same either.

Judges would be volunteers. Not forced.

If someone's life hangs in the balance then they deserve better than for it to be determined by a single, fallible human.

Again: Your solution to that is to have multiple fallible human beings determine their guilt?

How does that solve the problem of "fallible human beings"?

If your argument is that "there are fallible human beings as part of the system," then adding more won't solve that problem. And removing the position of a single judge only furthers the idea that you want to see criminals such as murderers and rapists go free and unpunished, which you keep trying to deny, but your argument keeps affirming.

The strongest cases in court are determined by substantial evidence and that's more than circumstantial/hearsay.

I wonder how many cases there are where a suspect is let go because of "substantial evidence" who then later gets caught committing the same crime he was originally on trial for... Or for how many prisoners there are who are released and commit the same or worse crime...

If a person is convicted, based on the testimony of two or three witnesses, where a thorough examination of the evidence is made by a judge, of having committed a capital crime, and is sentenced to death, why is that not enough for you, Arthur?

Regardless of the methods used, the kind of evidence gathered, even if it's not all direct evidence, as long as there's enough evidence, and no evidence to the contrary was found, if a judge determines, based on the evidence, using logic and reason, and examining witnesses (not necessarily eyewitnesses), that someone committed a crime, why do you argue that such is insufficient for a conviction?

Sometimes cases that at first have seemingly overwhelming evidence can be overturned further down the line when new/unexpected evidence transpires.

And if the judge did his due diligence, then so what? He made a decision, based on the evidence, which showed the suspect to be guilty. Why isn't that sufficient?

If evidence is found later on, then you investigate to see whether the judge made an error, and if he did not, then the judgement he made was valid, even if it was wrong.

Do you think God will not show even some mercy to the one put to death wrongly?

Should the woman who was raped have to suffer the taunting of her attacker in court, simply because you think the case might someday be overturned?

Oh, and what about the one who overturns such a case, do you not consider him to be a fallible human being? What if he's overturning the case wrongly?

Why worry about any of it to begin with, when God doesn't require or expect us to try to make such calculations, but instead would rather we put the convicted rapist to death based on the testimony of two or three witnesses?

So, even nowadays with the preponderance of far greater means of determining the likelihood of guilt it still needs to be measured.

Yes, and? No one is saying to do otherwise.

Again, that's what the "two OR three" part is about.

Weighing the evidence is part of the judge's duty.

You do realize that security footage can be checked as to whether it's been doctored though, right?

Right, but the initial presentation of [security footage] is not "indisputable," as I demonstrated.

And if the footage is shown to be original, undoctored, then it becomes strong evidence that the person had committed the crime.

But it still is not "absolute, indisputable evidence," for a dispute could still be made by the suspect, that the person shown is just a lookalike.

Do you see the point, yet?

Your mistake is presuming that because absolute proof should be required before executing someone means letting them go free if such isn't determined.

Your standard for conviction is "absolute proof."

If such a standard cannot be met, then what do you suggest we do with the accused. Your standard for conviction isn't met, and so no conviction can be made. What then?

If I were forced to be a judge under your system

I'm not even asking you to consider the question under my preferred system. I'm just asking you to consider whether you would be motivated to investigate the accusation to the best of your ability if you were the sole decider of whether someone is put to death or set free.

then if there wasn't such proof to absolutely determine guilt of heinous crime but establish likelihood of it then I'd sentence them to jail until such was cemented or further evidence came to light that cast doubt on the conviction and possible exoneration.

So you would lock someone up, and prevent them from going about their life? For how long? Days? Weeks? Months? Years? Decades? At what point do you stop looking for evidence and either punish the man who is accused of raping a woman, or release him?

Do you not see the problem?

The woman has presented evidence that she was raped, and you want to lock the person up and take a "wait and see" stance, because there might be evidence that he's not guilty.... just around the corner?

How is that justice?

Answer: It's not. It's cruel to both the woman and the accused. It's cruel to the woman, because she has to wait for closure on a traumatic experience, and it's cruel to the accused because he's not really being punished, only locked up like an animal in a cage, being fed, medicated, entertained, etc... on whose funding?

Okay, under you system I prob wouldn't be allowed to in which case I'd just resign, be sacked or whatever...

Supra.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You stated and then asked:



To which I responded:



You then said:



So what context am I not recognizing when I challenged you on your answer, which was a denial that they had evidence, testimony, reason, and logic, by saying:



How are you not trolling or just plain stupid?



I can read just fine, thank you.

You're the one denying that ancient Israelites had evidence, testimony, reason, and logic, are you not?



So you're retracting your denial then?



So what?

Why does that make any difference to how many witnesses are needed to establish a matter?



Continually?

You haven't even begun to explain why advancements in forensics should mean that we replace the standard of evidence needed for convictions.



No.

What I insist upon is that we adhere to the standard given by God for the number of witnesses needed to determine guilt or innocence, because His standard is good. Trying to improve upon it is evil, aside from being unnecessary.



Please quote anyone in this thread saying we shouldn't use modern techniques. Oh wait, you can't, because no one has.



God says that a matter is established based on two or three witnesses.

Why do you need "absolute guilt," when God says "two or three witnesses" is enough?



Yay, he can read!

Now compare it to what we were citing it in response.



No, current legal processes comb through evidence with utmost stringency. They simply cannot, due to the sheer number of cases that are continually being added to the docket.

They simply don't have the time to get to all of them, because of how many there are. And that's caused by, among other things, lack of appropriate punishments for criminals (lack of deterrent), and too high of a standard for evidence ("beyond reasonable doubt").

For example:

"Your Case is Closed, Don’t Call Here Any More": Most Rapes in New York City Went Unsolved in 2020

"To see the values ‘courtesy, professionalism and respect’ on every police car is an insult to my experience.”

gothamist.com

That's obvious... Even if you wanted to be, you aren't qualified to be a judge. You don't know the difference between right and wrong.



Judges would be volunteers. Not forced.



Again: Your solution to that is to have multiple fallible human beings determine their guilt?

How does that solve the problem of "fallible human beings"?

If your argument is that "there are fallible human beings as part of the system," then adding more won't solve that problem. And removing the position of a single judge only furthers the idea that you want to see criminals such as murderers and rapists go free and unpunished, which you keep trying to deny, but your argument keeps affirming.



I wonder how many cases there are where a suspect is let go because of "substantial evidence" who then later gets caught committing the same crime he was originally on trial for... Or for how many prisoners there are who are released and commit the same or worse crime...

If a person is convicted, based on the testimony of two or three witnesses, where a thorough examination of the evidence is made by a judge, of having committed a capital crime, and is sentenced to death, why is that not enough for you, Arthur?

Regardless of the methods used, the kind of evidence gathered, even if it's not all direct evidence, as long as there's enough evidence, and no evidence to the contrary was found, if a judge determines, based on the evidence, using logic and reason, and examining witnesses (not necessarily eyewitnesses), that someone committed a crime, why do you argue that such is insufficient for a conviction?



And if the judge did his due diligence, then so what? He made a decision, based on the evidence, which showed the suspect to be guilty. Why isn't that sufficient?

If evidence is found later on, then you investigate to see whether the judge made an error, and if he did not, then the judgement he made was valid, even if it was wrong.

Do you think God will not show even some mercy to the one put to death wrongly?

Should the woman who was raped have to suffer the taunting of her attacker in court, simply because you think the case might someday be overturned?

Oh, and what about the one who overturns such a case, do you not consider him to be a fallible human being? What if he's overturning the case wrongly?

Why worry about any of it to begin with, when God doesn't require or expect us to try to make such calculations, but instead would rather we put the convicted rapist to death based on the testimony of two or three witnesses?



Yes, and? No one is saying to do otherwise.

Again, that's what the "two OR three" part is about.

Weighing the evidence is part of the judge's duty.



Right, but the initial presentation of [security footage] is not "indisputable," as I demonstrated.

And if the footage is shown to be original, undoctored, then it becomes strong evidence that the person had committed the crime.

But it still is not "absolute, indisputable evidence," for a dispute could still be made by the suspect, that the person shown is just a lookalike.

Do you see the point, yet?



Your standard for conviction is "absolute proof."

If such a standard cannot be met, then what do you suggest we do with the accused. Your standard for conviction isn't met, and so no conviction can be made. What then?



I'm not even asking you to consider the question under my preferred system. I'm just asking you to consider whether you would be motivated to investigate the accusation to the best of your ability if you were the sole decider of whether someone is put to death or set free.



So you would lock someone up, and prevent them from going about their life? For how long? Days? Weeks? Months? Years? Decades? At what point do you stop looking for evidence and either punish the man who is accused of raping a woman, or release him?

Do you not see the problem?

The woman has presented evidence that she was raped, and you want to lock the person up and take a "wait and see" stance, because there might be evidence that he's not guilty.... just around the corner?

How is that justice?

Answer: It's not. It's cruel to both the woman and the accused. It's cruel to the woman, because she has to wait for closure on a traumatic experience, and it's cruel to the accused because he's not really being punished, only locked up like an animal in a cage, being fed, medicated, entertained, etc... on whose funding?



Supra.

I am not wading through the entirety of this mega parsed out response, why do you do that? I'll pick up on certain points and compact it from there.

The context was obvious or certainly should have been at any rate. So there's no retraction forthcoming from me. If you want to insist that directives issued to bronze age tribes who had no recourse to what we have in the present is paramount then that's your call. I don't expect you to consider anything outside of such a myopic view. However, if you agree that God abhors the shedding of innocent blood then you should reconsider given that your parameters in the present would guarantee such coming about.

There's no such thing as a perfect system and mistakes are going to be made, them's the sad facts unfortunately but we can improve the system without going backwards as per your ideal that would only result in people wrongfully being put to death.

You're in no position to tell anyone they don't know the difference between right and wrong so get off your little high horse JR cos that's all it is.

It's not sufficient evidence if it doesn't absolutely prove guilt and these are people's lives, not numbers.

I've given enough explanation as to people where likelihood of guilt has been established. Under your system many would now be six feet under whereas there's plenty who have had convictions overturned and at least been compensated for time served in prison.

 

[Stripe]

Anyone who accuses me of having an agenda as you describe has shown themselves to be a complete liar and/or utterly thick.

Right.

It can't be that you ignore or misrepresent everything we say.

You're getting no more responses from me.

Bye.

 

[Stripe]

Of course they had logic and reason but they were severely limited in how it could be applied in comparison to today.

Because they didn't have HDTV?

HDTV makes it easier to apply logic and reason, and cross-examine witnesses?

Wow.

Your HDTVs are magic.

Why does this continually need to be explained?

It doesn't.

You make no sense and feel a desperate need to find ways to justify yourself.

Try engaging respectfully.

You insist that we have to adhere to directives given at the time where there was nothing much else but circumstantial and personal testimony available to the tribes at the time.

Nope.

There is no insistence that we adhere strictly to Biblical directives.

You made that up.

Nope.

There was no restriction of process that allowed only "personal testimony" and circumstantial evidence.

You made that up.

Try to listen to what is presented and respect the answers to your insane challenges.

In the modern age where we have way more effective ways of determining the likelihood to the point of proving absolute innocence/guilt then there's no logical or moral reason not to use them to the hilt, especially if a person's life is on the line.

Please name someone who disagrees.

Just one person.

One.

Your myopic view that an insistence on absolute guilt before taking someone's life equates to letting suspects go free is a ridiculous conclusion of your own making. Does it really need explaining to you as to why?

No.

It's quite clear that you're just making this up as you go.

I've read the verse

Verses.

And you'll keep using your cartoon descriptions, despite the facts.

And?

And you're desperate for someone to say something you can argue with rather than adjusting your approach.

It's a lot harder to fabricate evidence of the sort required to ascertain guilt nowadays as you must surely know? What, do you think legal processes don't comb through it with utmost stringency or something?

All of which has no relevance, even if your implications were even remotely on point.

I wouldn't agree to be a judge under your parameters.

Parameters of logic, reason and sound investigation of evidence — including from HDTVs. It's not surprising that someone as stupid and irrational as you has no interest.

Nor should I or anyone else be forced to be one under the same either.

But you will insist that everyone be subject to the "just a system" in place in your area. A system that releases every murderer and rapist.

If someone's life hangs in the balance then they deserve better than for it to be determined by a single, fallible human.

You want a committee to let them go.

The strongest cases in court are determined by substantial evidence and that's more than circumstantial/hearsay.

Please name one person — just one — who says that evidence should not be examined.

Oh, that's right. You're a liar whose participation in a discussion is dependent on misrepresentation.

Sometimes cases that at first have seemingly overwhelming evidence can be overturned further down the line when new/unexpected evidence transpires. So, even nowadays with the preponderance of far greater means of determining the likelihood of guilt it still needs to be measured. You do realize that security footage can be checked as to whether it's been doctored though, right?

Please name one person — just one — who says that evidence should not be examined.

Oh, that's right. You're a liar whose participation in a discussion is dependent on misrepresentation.

Your mistake is presuming that because absolute proof should be required before executing someone means letting them go free if such isn't determined.

So you want to lock people up for the rest of their lives based on "circumstantial evidence"?

What a horrible human being you are.

If I were forced to be a judge under your system then if there wasn't such proof to absolutely determine guilt of heinous crime but establish likelihood of it then I'd sentence them to jail until such was cemented or further evidence came to light that cast doubt on the conviction and possible exoneration. Okay, under you system I prob wouldn't be allowed to in which case I'd just resign, be sacked or whatever...

"Whatever" being that you would never be considered for such a role

Too stupid.

you're referring to Covid 19 as a 'flu virus'

The Wu flu.

We take advantage of all sorts of modern developments and such should be applied to law and thankfully is.

Please name one person — just one — who says that evidence should not be examined.

Oh, that's right. You're a liar whose participation in a discussion is dependent on misrepresentation.

 

[Derf]

Some people confuse observations with ad homs. In no way do I support or have an "agenda" where I would want murderers and rapists to walk free or given any reason for such a contention. Those that claim so are willfully dishonest or have a rock in their head or possibly both.

And those who disagree with me are stupid, along with having a rock for a brain. Blah, blah, blah.