Religious Zealotry

Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
JudgeRightly said:
Exactly!

If a 5 year old commits a capital crime, he should be put to death.
If a 105 year old commits a capital crime, he should be put to death.

Age makes no difference in matters of justice.
Click to expand...
Of course it makes a difference else why stop at five? Why not charge babies with crimes as well? Ridiculous? Sure, but then so's charging five year old kids with murder. The reasoning centers of the brain are no way developed for them to be capable of such an act. The law rightfully takes this into account and it would be completely unjust to try them the same as an adult with no mental impairment.
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
JudgeRightly said:
That's pretty much my point.

The law is universally applicable. It covers the "gigantic 'IF's" that are practically meaningless, but if they happened, people would be wondering what to do.

If there was such a five year old who committed a capital crime, then he should be put to death.

There doesn't need to be a law that says "If a person is between X and Y ages, he is incapable of committing a (capital) crime."

The law simply needs to say: "If a person commits X (X being some capital crime), he should be put to death."

"If a child as young as five commits a capital crime, he should be put to death" isn't saying "Five year olds are capable of capital crimes." It's saying "If there was a five year old capable, and he committed a capital crime, God's law covers that: He should be put to death, because those who commit capital crimes should be put to death."

Something which a certain someone in this thread seems completely incapable of grasping.



"Non-accidental"?



There are still so many things I wanted to ask Him.

Our best option is to search and study the Scriptures, but after that, who do we talk to?

Will Duffy maybe? Doug McBurney?
Click to expand...
Five year old children aren't capable of committing capital crimes for obvious reasons outlined multiple times already. How are you seemingly incapable of grasping that?
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Clete said:
No, it would be an accident. It is not a crime for a child to shove someone across a bedroom and a person with sever retardation would not be able to think through the possible consequences of his actions in a manner where it would be reasonable to think he had any idea that such consequences were even a possibility.

In short, I doubt it would be possible for any five year old, whether biological age or mental age, is capable of committing the act of murder. Such people are to be pitied not executed.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
I guess that it depends on the specific person. Do you have a specific example of a 5 year old accused of murder?
Click to expand...
No, because under law no five year old child can be accused of such. Do you think a five year old can possibly fulfil the criteria where he/she can rightfully be charged with murder? If so, how?
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Arthur Brain said:
That's a shame, you were starting to answer questions and now you're back to the predictable juvenility. Ho hum.
Click to expand...
You are the childish one here. God's law is clear on the subject. Murderers receive the death penalty. Proving murder is the difficult part.

Your "5 year old murderer" is YOUR issue and not mine. If it can be proven that a 5 years was a MURDERER, then the death penalty is appropriate. If not a MURDERER, then no death penalty.

Too difficult for your "brain"?
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
You are the childish one here. God's law is clear on the subject. Murderers receive the death penalty. Proving murder is the difficult part.

Your "5 year old murderer" is YOUR issue and not mine. If it can be proven that a 5 years was a MURDERER, then the death penalty is appropriate. If not a MURDERER, then no death penalty.

Too difficult for your "brain"?
Click to expand...
Hardly. As much as I disagree with Clete (although not here) at least he gives straight answers to questions without resort to prevarication, dodge or childish deflection. If it's anyone's "hypothetical" then it's JR's as he is the one who contended that children as young as five can rightfully be executed. I've argued counter to that obviously. I've asked you how a five year old child can possibly fulfil the criteria whereby it can be charged with such a crime and instead of answering you deflect. if you're not willing to engage then fine, I'll stop wasting time trying and engage with those who debate with substance.
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Arthur Brain said:
Hardly. As much as I disagree with Clete (although not here) at least he gives straight answers to questions without resort to prevarication, dodge or childish deflection. If it's anyone's "hypothetical" then it's JR's as he is the one who contended that children as young as five can rightfully be executed.
Click to expand...
Once again, IF they can be proven to be a MURDERER, then YES, the just punishment is DEATH.
Arthur Brain said:
I've argued counter to that obviously.
Click to expand...
You've argument nothing at all... you simply assert things based on nothing (except perhaps "emotions").
Arthur Brain said:
I've asked you how a five year old child can possibly fulfil the criteria whereby it can be charged with such a crime and instead of answering you deflect. if you're not willing to engage then fine, I'll stop wasting time trying and engage with those who debate with substance.
Click to expand...
Apparently you do not understand the criteria specified in God's Word.
 
JudgeRightly

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Arthur Brain said:
If it's anyone's "hypothetical" then it's JR's as he is the one who contended that children as young as five can rightfully executed.
Click to expand...

Nope.

My contention is that if a child is convicted of a capital crime, he can rightfully be and should be executed.

It's the "conviction" part you're getting hung up on.
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
JudgeRightly said:
Nope.

My contention is that if a child is convicted of a capital crime, he can rightfully be and should be executed.

It's the "conviction" part you're getting hung up on.
Click to expand...
A five year old child can't be convicted of a capital crime for again - obvious reasons that have been outlined multiple times already. They're not old enough to be cognizant of their actions, to understand what they're doing in relation to ramification/consequence, integral components to their being justifiably accused, tried and convicted of murder.
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
Once again, IF they can be proven to be a MURDERER, then YES, the just punishment is DEATH.

You've argument nothing at all... you simply assert things based on nothing (except perhaps "emotions").

Apparently you do not understand the criteria specified in God's Word.
Click to expand...
The one getting emotional here is you. How can a five year old be a murderer at all RD? How are they in any way old enough to be aware of their actions at such an age, to act with full malice aforethought etc? Of course I've argued contrary with obvious counters based in logic and common sense. I effectively agree with Clete and if you think my argument is mere assertion then counter it. A five year old's brain isn't developed enough to understand matters the same as a fully compos mentis adult. If you disagree then provide an counter argument. Show me the criteria in the Bible that stipulates that minors are to be held as accountable for their actions as an adult.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top