Should Children Be Executed If They've...

[ok doser]

Because at least there is the possibility of correcting the issue.

how do you correct the loss of liberty for years?

how do you correct the fact that the wrongly incarcerated prisoner has in fact been kidnapped?

how do you correct having missed your children growing up, providing them with guidance and love and nurturing?

Why is it preferable for you to kill a person who does not deserve death?

it isn't

neither are preferable

both are equally unjust and those who are responsible for them should be charged with kidnapping and murder and executed themselves

I'm referring to the judge and prosecutor and anybody who bore false witness

the fact that one is seen as preferable to the other is an indication that our system of "justice" has serious, foundational flaws, which are rooted in the non-biblical concept of imprisonment

 

[Kit the Coyote]

how do you correct the loss of liberty for years?

how do you correct the fact that the wrongly incarcerated prisoner has in fact been kidnapped?

how do you correct having missed your children growing up, providing them with guidance and love and nurturing?

it isn't

neither are preferable

both are equally unjust and those who are responsible for them should be charged with kidnapping and murder and executed themselves

I'm referring to the judge and prosecutor and anybody who bore false witness

the fact that one is seen as preferable to the other is an indication that our system of "justice" has serious, foundational flaws, which are rooted in the non-biblical concept of imprisonment

How do you answer those children and family when you tell them that you removed the safeguards that might have prevented him from being executed?


​

How do you stop the legislators reinstating all those safeguards you want to get rid of once the families of the wrongly executed persons start hitting the evening news demanding it never happen again?

 

[ok doser]

How do you stop the legislators reinstating all those safeguards you want to get rid of once the families of the wrongly executed persons start hitting the evening news demanding it never happen again?

by trying and executing those responsible - the judge, prosecutor and any who bore false witness

and any legislators who push for legislation that subverts Godly justice

 

[Stripe]

How do you answer those children and family when you tell them that you removed the safeguards that might have prevented him from being executed?


​

How do you stop the legislators reinstating all those safeguards you want to get rid of once the families of the wrongly executed persons start hitting the evening news demanding it never happen again?

How do you answer those who are murdered by men who should have been executed?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[ok doser]

So I think this case is a really relevant example to look at in this discussion.

Joe Arridy executed for the rape and murder of a 15-year-old school girl in Pueblo Colorado. There were the two witness pieces of evidence as I understand them being argued here. A witness that put him at the scene of the crime (and turned out later to be the real killer) and his own confessions to the crime. His confessions though changed in each telling.

Arridy was mentally handicapped and had a mental reasoning less than a six-year-old. Years after he was killed, when the real killer was discovered and the proof was found that he was not in Pueblo that day, it was reasoned that he was just telling the investigators what they wanted to hear in the confessions with no idea what he was confessing to. According to the warden and doctors who examined him, he never understood that he was accused of a crime or that he was going to die. He died in the gas chamber that he entered thinking it was a playroom he could play with his toy train in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arridy

This is the cost of your rock.

and the judge and prosecutors and those who bore false witness all deserve to be put to death for his kidnapping and murder

but they weren't, were they?

 

[ok doser]

Just a question, and I would like a sincere answer..

Why do we consider it unacceptable for an individual to kill, while at the same time, view State killing as both appropriate and necessary?

it's acceptable for an individual to kill if they're acting as an agent of the state (police, military, judge)

i spose stand your ground laws take that to a next level

 

[Kit the Coyote]

by trying and executing those responsible - the judge, prosecutor and any who bore false witness

and any legislators who push for legislation that subverts Godly justice

Oh that should go over well. Not only are we killing innocent people but we going to kill people for making mistakes. It seems being Human is now a captial crime. I wouldn't put much hope in legislators passing that law or the courts upholding it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

how do you correct the loss of liberty for years?

One cannot. It's not possible. :thumb:

how do you correct the fact that the wrongly incarcerated prisoner has in fact been kidnapped?

how do you correct having missed your children growing up, providing them with guidance and love and nurturing?

it isn't

neither are preferable

both are equally unjust and those who are responsible for them should be charged with kidnapping and murder and executed themselves

I'm referring to the judge and prosecutor and anybody who bore false witness

the fact that one is seen as preferable to the other is an indication that our system of "justice" has serious, foundational flaws, which are rooted in the non-biblical concept of imprisonment

How do you answer those children and family when you tell them that you removed the safeguards that might have prevented him from being executed?

The safeguards you are referring to may keep the innocent from being punished wrongly, but they also allow criminals to go unpunished in the process. In addition, you're forgetting that God says that the death penalty is a deterrent to criminals. That means less crime being committed. That means fewer cases are brought before a judge. That means less stress for the judge. That means when cases do come up, the judge is able to make better decisions. That means fewer innocent people are wrongly convicted, meaning that your dilemma isn't very likely to happen; and more guilty people are correctly convicted, punished, and if not executed, then let go back into the public, hopefully a better person for it who now has a healthy fear of what will happen if he commits a crime again. That means that fewer criminals repeat their crimes. That means even less crime is being committed. Etc... Etc... Etc... ad nauseum.

It's never ok to do evil (in this case, let criminals live who should be put to death) that good may come of it (to avoid killing someone who should not die).

God's system of executing those convicted of capital crime on the testimony of two or three witnesses and allowing to go free those who are deemed innocent because of not enough strong witnesses against them is perfectly balanced. If someone is convicted of a capital crime on two or three witnesses, then according to God, the should be executed. If evidence (two or three witnesses) comes to light later that shows them to be innocent, then the judge is to be held accountable, as well as those who falsely accused the one put to death. That's how you make it right to the family of the one who was wrongly put to death. You hold accountable those who are accountable for the death of an innocent person.

How do you stop the legislators reinstating all those safeguards you want to get rid of once the families of the wrongly executed persons start hitting the evening news demanding it never happen again?

What legislators? Morality is not legislated. It simply is. Moral law is absolute. It has always been, is, and always will be wrong to intentionally take the life of an innocent person. And the only appropriate punishment for such an act, because all persons, born and unborn, are made in the image of God, always has been, is, and always will be the death penalty.

God said that someone who is found guilty on the basis of two or three witnesses of a capital crime is to be executed. He never gave any exceptions.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

How do you answer those who are murdered by men who should have been executed?

We can go round and round on this but I can assure you of the two scenarios, the state killing innocent people is going to be the least acceptable of the two to the public at large. You will not get legislators to pass these laws or courts to uphold them, particularly when the first wrongly convicted person's family hits the news after they were executed without an appeal.

That bit I was saying earlier about the blood of the killer is on his hands but the blood of the innocent man killed by the state is on all our hands. you may think it is not that relevant but I can assure you most people will agree with that and politicians will act accordingly.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

The safeguards you are referring to may keep the innocent from being punished wrongly, but they also allow criminals to go unpunished in the process. In addition, you're forgetting that God says that the death penalty is a deterrent to criminals. That means less crime being committed. That means fewer cases are brought before a judge. That means less stress for the judge. That means when cases do come up, the judge is able to make better decisions. That means fewer innocent people are wrongly convicted, meaning that your dilemma isn't very likely to happen; and more guilty people are correctly convicted, punished, and if not executed, then let go back into the public, hopefully a better person for it who now has a healthy fear of what will happen if he commits a crime again. That means that fewer criminals repeat their crimes. That means even less crime is being committed. Etc... Etc... Etc... ad nauseum.

Yet history overall and the stats you have produced do not support this theorem. And I have already pointed out the few places we have seen where history has achieved something like this were places you would not want to live in.

What legislators? Morality is not legislated. It simply is. Moral law is absolute. It has always been, is, and always will be wrong to intentionally take the life of an innocent person. And the only appropriate punishment for such an act, because all persons, born and unborn, are made in the image of God, always has been, is, and always will be the death penalty.

God said that someone who is found guilty on the basis of two or three witnesses of a capital crime is to be executed. He never gave any exceptions.

It may not be legislated but our judicial system is. You would have to pass a constitutional amendment as well as several other laws in order to implement the approach you wish to take. So in answer to your question the US Congress, the President, and a majority of the state legislatures.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yet history overall and the stats you have produced do not support this theorem. And I have already pointed out the few places we have seen where history has achieved something like this were places you would not want to live in.



It may not be legislated but our judicial system is. You would have to pass a constitutional amendment as well as several other laws in order to implement the approach you wish to take. So in answer to your question the US Congress, the President, and a majority of the state legislatures.

You seem to keep forgetting the fact that the system I advocate, from the kind of government, how it functions, what it does, how it punishes criminals, how it is regulated, all of that, is completely and utterly different than the system we have currently.

New government, new constitution, new justice system. Not one bit of the old system would remain.

It's not just an overhaul I advocate, but a replacement.

The current constitution would be put in the archives, and a new one (such as the one proposed by kgov, which I have shared in my "advocation of government" thread) would be implemented.

The current government would be dismantled, and in it's place a king would be chosen by lottery, and his successor would be his firstborn son, or another lottery would be held if he had no sons, and he would appoint people to serve under him as he so chooses.

The current "just-a-system" would be dismantled, and the king would appoint up to 10 judges underneath him, and they would appoint judges beneath them, on down until there are judges at the levels described in Exodus 18.

All of your arguments assume that none of what I just said happens.

Yet my arguments are not based on what currently is, but what should be.

 

[ok doser]

We are to leave vengeance to God and bring Christ to others, not go around killing others.

wait

what?

do you think there is anybody in this thread that is advocating that Christians should "go around killing others"? :freak:

 

[Kit the Coyote]

You seem to keep forgetting the fact that the system I advocate, from the kind of government, how it functions, what it does, how it punishes criminals, how it is regulated, all of that, is completely and utterly different than the system we have currently.

New government, new constitution, new justice system. Not one bit of the old system would remain.

It's not just an overhaul I advocate, but a replacement.

The current constitution would be put in the archives, and a new one (such as the one proposed by kgov, which I have shared in my "advocation of government" thread) would be implemented.

The current government would be dismantled, and in it's place a king would be chosen by lottery, and his successor would be his firstborn son, or another lottery would be held if he had no sons, and he would appoint people to serve under him as he so chooses.

The current "just-a-system" would be dismantled, and the king would appoint up to 10 judges underneath him, and they would appoint judges beneath them, on down until there are judges at the levels described in Exodus 18.

All of your arguments assume that none of what I just said happens.

Yet my arguments are not based on what currently is, but what should be.

Ahh, you do realize you can't just retire the Constitution of the United States. You would still need all those legislators and more just to initiate the process of dissolving the government.

 

[Stripe]

We can go round and round on this but I can assure you of the two scenarios, the state killing innocent people is going to be the least acceptable of the two to the public at large.

Popularity is not an argument. At least, not a rational one.

You will not get legislators to pass these laws or courts to uphold them, particularly when the first wrongly convicted person's family hits the news after they were executed without an appeal.

And this is an argument from consequence.

That bit I was saying earlier about the blood of the killer is on his hands but the blood of the innocent man killed by the state is on all our hands. you may think it is not that relevant but I can assure you most people will agree with that and politicians will act accordingly.

I don't care how many people you think might agree with you: Releasing murderers is as bad as executing innocent people, assuming you are setting up a system to prefer one of those over the other.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Popularity is not an argument. At least, not a rational one.

And this is an argument from consequence.

I don't care how many people you think might agree with you: Releasing murderers is as bad as executing innocent people, assuming you are setting up a system to prefer one of those over the other.

You may not care what the people think but if you plan to tear down the government and replacing it, what they think matters a lot. With crime and murder rates overall declining over the last century, I really don't see a demand for what you offer catching hold.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You may not care what the people think but if you plan to tear down the government and replacing it, what they think matters a lot.

This is an appeal to popularity.

Also, a monarchy's authority flows from the top down, from God to the king to the people, like authority should. A democracy (or republic, which is just a kissing cousin of democracy) has the authority flowing uphil from the people to the government.

With crime and murder rates overall declining over the last century, I really don't see a demand for what you offer catching hold.

Declining? Past century?

I think you need a reality check.

View attachment 26647

Look at the chart on the four and fifth pages of the above attachment and on the sixth and seventh pages (or go here). Since the early 1900s, the overall crime rate has risen, not fallen, with the lowest point being around 1904, and the second lowest being around 1963. Note that the point in '63 is far higher than in 1904.

No, the crime rate has not been declining for the past century. It's been fluctuating, sure, but the overall trend is upwards.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Ahh, you do realize you can't just retire the Constitution of the United States. You would still need all those legislators and more just to initiate the process of dissolving the government.

I realize that the only morally just way to replace our government is to either change it from within, where people dedicated to the task of replacing the government all get appointed (legally and without bloodshed) to positions of power, and then unanimously setting up a new government (though not sure if it's possible), or to have another country overpower us and install a new government (equally as unlikely, especially in our lifetimes).

 

[JudgeRightly]

What do you mean by "knowingly acquit" guilty people and it being a "common occurrence"?

Ever heard of the phrase, "getting off on a technicality"? How many cases per year have the criminal getting away with a crime simply because of a legal loophole or because the evidence against them that proves that they were guilty was obtained the wrong way, and therefore not allowed to be used against them, even though LITERALLY EVERYONE knows they're guilty?

You're full of hyperbole and yet offer little besides opinion for support.

Sure I do.

Under your "system" innocent people would undoubtedly go to their deaths because your litmus for establishing guilt is less stringent than what the law requires now.

:blabla:

The perfect litmus is "by two or three witnesses" and weigh the evidence. That's GOD'S standard. And since His ways are just, that's what should be followed. Don't like it? Take it up with Him. But know this, when going against God, God is true, and every man a liar.

So your standard reduces to believing a thing because no one has proven that what didn't happen couldn't be true? lain:

Nope.

I feel confident that we have acquitted guilty people.

Well I'm glad you admit at least that much.

Many people think OJ was guilty,

OJ was guilty. What people think has nothing to do with it.

by way of example. I'm sure it happens, though there's no empirical study that I know of suggesting it as more than an aberration.

As far as I'm aware, there's no studies at all on it, let alone that say that it's "more than an aberration."

Do you have any empirical, objective, peer reviewed study in support of the idea of a common occurrence?

http://newsok.com/special/article/5...an-inflate-perceptions-of-how-many-get-solved

Which would be a curious way of saying your inclination doesn't appear to be sustained by larger observation, which makes sense.

What's the standard for equating crime in a free society with an epidemic?

When crime that should be horrifying or shocking hardly makes national headlines, because it's such a common occurrence.

Merriam-Webster has it that epidemics are defined as "excessively prevalent" occurrences "characterized by a widespread growth..."

Fits with what I just said. That crime is so prevalent that even the horrifying and shocking crimes don't even make national headlines anymore.

Crime rates have largely fallen with the aging of the Baby Boomers. You might well suggest something like an epidemic of violent crime a few decades ago, when drug fueled violence within the Baby Boomer population took the nation to an average of double digit homicides per 100k. At present, despite an increase in mass violence, the overall rate is approximating the rate prior to that period of uncommon violence.

Since 1900, (see my post addressed to Kit above), crime has trended UPWARDS, with the lowest and second lowest points being around 1904 and 1963, respectively.

 

[Stripe]

You may not care what the people think but if you plan to tear down the government and replacing it, what they think matters a lot. With crime and murder rates overall declining over the last century, I really don't see a demand for what you offer catching hold.

:yawn:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Ever heard of the phrase, "getting off on a technicality"? How many cases per year have the criminal getting away with a crime simply because of a legal loophole or because the evidence against them that proves that they were guilty was obtained the wrong way, and therefore not allowed to be used against them, even though LITERALLY EVERYONE knows they're guilty?

Sure I've heard of it but it's hardly as common as what you make out.

Sure I do.

No, you don't. You declare stuff and hand wave a lot but that doesn't amount to anything resembling fact, in fact your assertions that you could reduce the crime rate to practically zero is just downright absurd.

:blabla:

The perfect litmus is "by two or three witnesses" and weigh the evidence. That's GOD'S standard. And since His ways are just, that's what should be followed. Don't like it? Take it up with Him. But know this, when going against God, God is true, and every man a liar.

Is it :blabla: when it says that God abhors the shedding of innocent blood? If you took your head out of the OT for a minute you might see that the measures applied for the time as that's pretty much all they'll have had back then. In an age where we can ascertain evidence by much more accurate methods then what excuse is there for convicting without absolute proof of guilt? Your system would have innocent people convicted, it would simply be unavoidable. Maybe you should take things up with God yourself as do you think He'd be happy about that?