Should Children Be Executed If They've...

[Town Heretic]

Not too bright, are you.

Well, I do engage your "look at me" efforts now and again, so there is an argument on your side of it.

And that has to feel like a first for you.

It's laughable that you would deny that the US had a murder epidemic.

Just noting your habit of pretending to speak for a population you aren't a member of as though you were and a thing you don't appear to have much of a grasp regarding as though you do.

I've actually set out the murder statistics prior. We have a mass violence/shooting problem that is unprecedented, but our murder rates are actually much lower than they were for decades, mostly owing to the Baby Boomers aging. Here's a link to an article from ABC last year entitled "Murder Rate Drops to 33 Year Low." The article notes that the 80s saw an explosion on that count driven by drugs. Overall last year serious crimes fell by 20%. LINK

You're laughable

That's not how you spell laudable, but it is how you illustrate envious.

the murder epidemic is not.

I agree there is not a murder epidemic. Funny way for you to write it though. lain: Foreigners.

 

[Stripe]

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.

:AMR:

Pass. :idunno:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

I've actually set out the murder statistics prior. We have a mass violence/shooting problem that is unprecedented, but our murder rates are actually much lower than they were for decades, mostly owing to the Baby Boomers aging. Here's a link to an article from ABC last year entitled "Murder Rate Drops to 33 Year Low." The article notes that the 80s saw an explosion on that count driven by drugs. Overall last year serious crimes fell by 20%. LINK

Yay. One murder every half hour. There's dancing in the streets. lain:

Foreigners.

It is you who is the outsider here, racist.

Also, you don't seem to have a very good grasp of simple English.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Kit the Coyote]

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

Really?

"Each death penalty case in Texas costs taxpayers about $2.3 million. That is about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. ("Executions Cost Texas Millions," Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992)."
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty#financialfacts

 

[Stripe]

Really?

"Each death penalty case in Texas costs taxpayers about $2.3 million. That is about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. ("Executions Cost Texas Millions," Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992)."
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty#financialfacts

I don't care how much you spend on lawyers. It's a stupid argument. Rocks are free.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Kit the Coyote]

I don't care how much you spend on lawyers. It's a stupid argument. Rocks are free.

In the context we are discussing, no they are actually very expensive. How expensive depends on how you measure the cost of an innocent Human life.

 

[Town Heretic]

Yay. One murder every half hour. There's dancing in the streets. lain:

I didn't say we weren't a violent people. We are. Always have been. We have more guns than people here. And within that context we've had decades with remarkable murder rates. But those have been in decline for some time now on the whole and our current rate is back to the averages we saw before drugs and the Baby Boomers exploded the numbers. Now that looked like an epidemic. But even with the increase in mass shootings what we've had of late is more closely aligned with the murder rate when the Greatest Generation was in full swing.

It is you who is the outsider here, racist.

Simmer down, kid. You're ungluing.

Also, you don't seem to have a very good grasp of simple English.

Where I'd say that appears to be the whole of your grasp.

Hey, lookie there. JR repping a quote with "racist" in it.

Seriously, just put a semicolon in the next bit and let's see if he notices before he hits the rep button.

 

[JudgeRightly]

In the context we are discussing, no they are actually very expensive. How expensive depends on how you measure the cost of an innocent Human life.

In the context of the discussion, your argument is irrelevant, because it has very little to do with what we advocate, which is a swift and painful execution, typically by stoning.

Rocks are free. Prison sentences are not. The current style of executions are not.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

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.

 

[drbrumley]

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?

 

[Stripe]

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.

Can we count against you all the innocent people murdered by people your system sets free?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

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?

We don't. It's perfectly fine, good for normal people to kill. Even obligatory.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[marhig]

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.

I didn't mean that thank that, this is disgusting! Especially considering what some here believe that people should be stoned to death for!

No one should be killed, and never ever children. What kind of people would even think that any child should be put to death, let alone stoned to death? It's just crazy!

 

[marhig]

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

those verses are not natural they are Spiritual.

 

[marhig]

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

The woman caught in adultery had committed an offence worthy of death by stoning according to the Jews. But Jesus said those without sin cast the first stone. None of us are without sin, and we have no right killing another, never mind stoning them! And to even think of killing a child is sickening!!!

 

[marhig]

We don't. It's perfectly fine, good for normal people to kill. Even obligatory.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

It's not "normal" to kill

 

[JudgeRightly]

I didn't mean that thank that,

You can remove your thanks by visiting my post on the desktop site and clicking on the "remove thanks" button.

this is disgusting!

Why? Because you say so?

You're making an appeal to emotion. That's a fallacious argument.

Especially considering what some here believe that people should be stoned to death for!

The Bible clearly outlines which criminals should be put to death for their crimes. The Bible is also God's Word, in case you had forgotten.

Therefore, God outlines who should be executed for their crimes. Who are you to go against Him?

No one should be killed, and never ever children.

That's not what God's word, the Bible says. The Bible says that people who commit capital crimes should be executed, regardless of their age.

What kind of people would even think that any child should be put to death, let alone stoned to death? It's just crazy!

Again, this is an emotional argument, not a logical, and certainly not Biblical, one.

 

[Stripe]

It's not "normal" to kill

Luckily, I didn't say it was. :up:

You can remove your thanks by visiting my post on the desktop site and clicking on the "remove thanks" button.

Hopefully, she figures it out. Town gets upset when people "thank" me.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

those verses are not natural they are Spiritual.

The opposite of "natural" is not "spiritual."

The opposite of "natural" is "unnatural."

The laws given to Israel that were intended ONLY for Israel (such as the dietary laws) are both natural AND spiritual laws. They have a natural application and a spiritual one, but ONLY for Israel. Not for any other people.

The woman caught in adultery had committed an offence worthy of death by stoning according to the Jews. But Jesus said those without sin cast the first stone.

Jesus never repealed the death penalty, no, not even when the "adulteress" was brought before him.

None of us are without sin,

The only logical conclusion to this argument is that no one should be punished ever for committing any crime at all.

God knows that man is sinful, and yet He still expects justice to be dealt to those who break the law. If someone steals, He expects restitution. If someone harms someone physically, He expects corporal punishment. If someone if someone murders or commits adultery, He expects the death penalty.

God's ways are just, loving, and merciful, and if there's any conflict in what a man believes with what He says, let God be true and every man a liar.

The death penalty is merciful. It shows mercy to the victims, while at the same time punishing the guilty. By excluding the death penalty from punishments for crime, you show mercy to the criminal, while punishing the innocent for being victims.

and we have no right killing another,

Exodus 22:2, Deuteronomy 17:7, and Acts 25:11 prove you to be wrong, and there are plenty more verses like those.

never mind stoning them!

Stoning is just one form of punishment that could be used.

There's also...

Old Sparky (electric chair)
Old Rusty (lethal injection with no anaesthetic (also no reason to clean the needle))
Old Stabby (knife for stabbing to death)
Old Knotty (hangman's noose)
Firing Squad
Pit (or pool) full of hungry animals (such as piranhas, lions, wolves, etc)
Burned at the stake (appropriate for arsonists)
Thrown off a cliff (used in B.E.'s book The First Five Days for abortionists convicted of murder)
Spacing (or "airlocking", useful for capital criminals in space or deep underwater)
And of course, guillotine.

And to even think of killing a child is sickening!!!

More appeals to emotion.

If a child commits a capital crime, he should be put to death. If he does not commit a capital crime, he should not be put to death. It's as simple as that.

The Law applies equally to all men, women, and children.

It's not "normal" to kill

It's perfectly fine to kill someone who is trying to kill you or another innocent person if it's the only way to stop them, and it's perfectly fine for a government to execute criminals worthy of death.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Can we count against you all the innocent people murdered by people your system sets free?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

As I said before, in my honest opinion, no. I did not force that person to kill. The blood for his crimes is on his hands. But as a member of the society, if that society kills an innocent in it's rush to justice, that blood is on all our hands. I have no problem with life imprisonment, which would address your concern just as readily. So I stand by my position, your rocks are too expensive.