George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
I agree with you.
Should Children Be Executed If They've...
- Thread starter Arthur Brain
- Start date
I agree with you.
So... You're saying that two or three witnesses establishing guilt of a capital crime in a speedy trial where the convicted criminal is then stoned is more expensive than "life in prison without parole"?
:idunno:
Seems like the only expense would be the effort it would take for the public to pick up some large enough stones and throw them, as opposed to all the millions of tax dollars required to keep a criminal alive for the rest of his life, and keep him comfortable, at that...
In other words, if it costs more to put someone to death who is worthy of death than it does to keep them alive and comfortable for the rest of their life, however long that may be, then there's something wrong with the system.
They add up the costs of housing a murderer for years, lawyer fees for appeals and other things.
Ie, they think their method of executing people is the one we would endorse.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Talk about a giant waste of money. I could use those tax dollars for better things!
It's just like the large sums of money politicians use up just so they can get elected/re-elected every few years. That money could be better used elsewhere.
Let's be fair, anyone who thinks a baby could rightly be executed is either retarded or...
:think:
No, I got nothing else. He's retarded.
And this from the type who endorse baby-killing.
Why are we talking about Donaldtrump?
Who? :idunno:
Good question. I've never heard of him. :idunno:
Kit the Coyote
New member
How much does an innocent life cost?
There has never been a legal system in Human history where innocents were not falsely convicted. If you think it is not possible to produce two witnesses to convict an innocent man and throw the first rock, you have never studied the hanging times of Jim Crow laws.
I will happily support your idea of a legal system when you can demonstrate a 100% guarantee that the innocent will be protected.
Non sequitur.
Your contention was that life imprisonment would be more expensive than execution. Executions could cost as much as it takes to get enough rocks on the perp, obviously far cheaper than a lifetime of food, accommodation and entertainment.
:AMR:
These are arguments from emotion and consequence. Try something rational.
I will happily support your ideas if you can guarantee no guilty men go free.
lain:Kit the Coyote
New member
You left out the critical bit. I said in a legal system that has adequate safeguards to protect the innocent, life without parole is cheaper. You can't ignore the innocent argument just because it is inconvenient.
:AMR:
You can say that saving innocent lives from unjust execution at the hands of the state is emotional but it is still a relevant argument. If you cannot simply ignore it. A guilty person may go free and he may take innocent lives but that blood is on his head and hands. If we as a society execute an innocent person, that life and blood are on our heads.
I will happily support your ideas if you can guarantee no guilty men go free.
By that standard, your system is not acceptable either, as there is no guarantee that guilty men will not go free with it. What if there is only one witness, what if there are no witnesses? You are only offering to convict more of the guilty not all of them and to do so by unjustly killing the innocent.
Committing a capitol crime requires intent. A soldier going to war has the intent to kill the enemy. Is he guilty of murder when he does so? A 3 year old playing with a loaded gun kills a family member. How do you prove a 3 year old had the intent to murder the family member? A woman lives in extreme abuse for years and that abuse is now being directed towards her children. She finally kills her abuser. Is she guilty of murder or is it self defense and defense of her children?
When does a person poses the ability to form criminal intent? This is an extremely difficult question to answer. I don't know if any magic age that works for everybody. Some people, such as serial killers, can start to show signs of what they will become at very early ages when they start to torture and kill animals.
In short, I cannot see any reasonable argument for executing young children for capitol offenses.
When does a person poses the ability to form criminal intent? This is an extremely difficult question to answer. I don't know if any magic age that works for everybody. Some people, such as serial killers, can start to show signs of what they will become at very early ages when they start to torture and kill animals.
In short, I cannot see any reasonable argument for executing young children for capitol offenses.
Last edited:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
You must be suffering from a lack of reading comprehension if you think that was actually said. The example of a baby was used to affirm just how pathetic it is to argue that it's righteous to execute young children as adults.
And not to eat shellfish. All sorts of things, really. He held Israel to some tough standards, that's for certain. We don't execute our criminals here for the most part, though it varies by state and more states than not still have it on the books.
You should change your system then. It's different over here. And we don't have a crime epidemic here either. What sort of hell-hole state do you live in? Whatever your nation of origin and residence, I hope you get a handle on it without killing a lot of people.
What about lower case killers?
Cause that's really at the heart of it. People just don't realize how bad murder is...:thumb:
Nothing worse than the old, boring, pedestrian murders. :thumb:
Nah, though I am amused by idiotic assumption and faux argument, which makes your post a win/win.
Nope. He actually said: "Get up, kill and eat" and "do not call unclean that which has been made clean."
Shellfish rules changed.
Capital punishment did not.
:darwinsm:
:think:
Wait, that's not overly funny, is it?
lain:Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
You mean later. First you couldn't eat it. Then you could.
You think?
I believe you believe that.
I believe our relationship to the law isn't the relationship Israel had under the Mosaic law.
No, but then no one said it is.
Maybe it's a culture thing. Is that funny where you live? If so is it a part of an epidemic?
And what's the over/under on JR liking it if you just post some punctuation? :think:
Speaking of faux outrage and gravity:
You just can't get out of your own way, can you?
That's nice.
We prefer the law. Words in stone. They don't care what you believe.
That's right. Salvation is no longer of Israel; it is now of grace.
However, salvation is a separate topic; we are talking about the law.
Jesus said the law would not pass away. Do you think He lied? Or maybe there is a difference between shellfish and murder. We could go have a look at the passages that deal with unclean animals — test your assertions about what the law is about.
Or we could just ignore your "beliefs" and stick with God's word, you know: Justice. :up:
Not too bright, are you.
It's laughable that you would deny that the US had a murder epidemic. You're laughable; the murder epidemic is not.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
What? :AMR:
Are you upset now?
Or do you just not understand?
Whatsisname says that executing a murderer is more expensive than feeding, housing and entertaining him for the rest of his life. That's laughable, even if he is comparing your system to your system.
By contrast to the decades a perp in Texas can spend on death row, not to mention lawyers, the Bible endorses a swift and painful execution, ie, rocks shortly after conviction.
Nothing expensive about rocks.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
No. Do you want me to be or just hope for it?
I don't really care how you contort to keep up the pretext that your faux indignation about my taking your efforts lightly is one thing and you mocking within the same conversational topic is another.
You threw that rock in a glass house.