Should Children Be Executed If They've...

[Kit the Coyote]

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.

Therein lies the flaw in your position. life without parole is a perfectly viable way to stop them. And not as expensive as we think when we see the true cost of the rocks.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Therein lies the flaw in your position.

I'm not seeing it...

life without parole is a perfectly viable way to stop them.

You're not on the same page as me.

I'm not talking about after a trial, where the criminal is in custody. I'm talking about before the authorities arrive at the scene of the crime, out on the street where someone is coming at you or someone else with a knife and you have a gun in your hand. Shoot to stop, and if he won't stop, then keep firing, and if he still won't stop, then shoot till he stops moving.

And not as expensive as we think when we see the true cost of the rocks.

"True cost of the rocks"?

What, you think you have to go to a store and buy the rocks?

Just go outside and look around, they're practically everywhere, you just have to pick them up.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

"True cost of the rocks"?

What, you think you have to go to a store and buy the rocks?

Just go outside and look around, they're practically everywhere, you just have to pick them up.

Based on current statistics for innocent people convicted under the death penalty, the current cost of your rock is around one innocent human life will get you about 25 rocks. I expect that cost will go up drastically once you remove the safeguards.

And the cost really doesn't seem to be worth it. When you compare stats between similar states and countries that have and don't have death penalties, the states with the death penalties almost always have higher murder rates.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterr...alty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

 

[JudgeRightly]

As I said before, in my honest opinion, no. I did not force that person to kill.

No, but you allowed him to live, and then he killed someone. Your hands are just as bloody as his.

The blood for his crimes is on his hands.

And yours, for letting him go free when he should have been executed. Instead of being punished, and people like him being deterred, he went out and killed an innocent person, and criminals like him were emboldened to kill. The blood of the innocent people killed is also on the hands of all the people involved in letting him go free, including but not limited to the lawyers, jurors, and judges.

No one here denies that it is wicked to execute an innocent person, but it's just as wicked to allow a guilty person to go free.

Or have you forgotten what Paul said, and I paraphrase: "Don't do evil that good may come of it." God says one profanes Him by killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live.

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.

But doesn't deter criminals, nor is it swift and painful, as God demands it to be.

So I stand by my position, your rocks are too expensive.

Free is too expensive? What crazy world do you live in?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Based on current statistics for innocent people convicted under the death penalty, the current cost of your rock is around one innocent human life will get you about 25 rocks. I expect that cost will go up drastically once you remove the safeguards.

And the cost really doesn't seem to be worth it. When you compare stats between similar states and countries that have and don't have death penalties, the states with the death penalties almost always have higher murder rates.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterr...alty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

:blabla:

You're denying that going out and picking up (reusable) rocks is free, while the cost of letting murderers go free is countless innocent lives.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

No, but you allowed him to live, and then he killed someone. Your hands are just as bloody as his.

And yours, for letting him go free when he should have been executed. Instead of being punished, and people like him being deterred, he went out and killed an innocent person, and criminals like him were emboldened to kill. The blood of the innocent people killed is also on the hands of all the people involved in letting him go free, including but not limited to the lawyers, jurors, and judges.

No one here denies that it is wicked to execute an innocent person, but it's just as wicked to allow a guilty person to go free,

No, again the decision to kill is his and his alone. That he gains an advantage in making that decision by living in a free society is indeed the cost of having such a society. But as I illustrated elsewhere here, the societies that do not have such freedoms are not worth living in.

But doesn't deter criminals, nor is it swift and painful, as God demands it to be.

The evidence we have disputed this. There is no murder in the ISIS-held Middle East? And if it is indeed stopping crime there, do you want to live there?

Free is too expensive? What crazy world do you live in?

I have shown why it is not free. That you choose to not see it, is not my fault.

 

[Stripe]

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.

OK. I'm going to stick with God's way, not yours.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, again the decision to kill is his and his alone.

His decision to kill is enabled by your letting him go free. So yes, the blood is on your hands as well, and not only any following murders, but the original murder as well, for helping him escape judgment. That's called aiding and abetting.

That he gains an advantage in making that decision by living in a free society is indeed the cost of having such a society. But as I illustrated elsewhere here, the societies that do not have such freedoms are not worth living in.

A free society doesn't allow criminals to go free and commit crimes again, nor should it.

The evidence we have disputed this.

If prisons were a deterrent for crime, then every prison everywhere would be empty or nearly empty. As it stands now, there are 6836 prisons, correctional facilities, military prisons, immigration detention facilities, civil commitment centers, state psychiatric hospitals, and jails in the US, with almost 2.3 million people being held within their walls.

Clearly, the evidence doesn't support your narrative.

There is no murder in the ISIS-held Middle East?

Who made that claim?

And if it is indeed stopping crime there, do you want to live there?

I never said the death penalty "stops" crime.

I said it deters crime. Huge difference.

Question: could you provide a scenario where the authorities, using whatever level of technology (non-fictional or fictional) that you think is appropriate, could prevent or stop any crime from happening?

I have shown why it is not free.

You've shown why going out and picking up a rock isn't free? :mock:

That you choose to not see it, is not my fault.

That you continue to make straw man arguments against my position is not my fault.

 

[Arthur Brain]

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.

They don't care.

:rain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

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.



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



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.



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



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.



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 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.

"Old stabby"?! Wow, so it would be perfectly acceptable to knife a six year old "criminal" child to death as well?

Some of you people are just unreal.

 

[JudgeRightly]

"Old stabby"?! Wow, so it would be perfectly acceptable to knife a six year old "criminal" child to death as well?

Some of you people are just unreal.

If a 6 year old is convicted because he repeatedly stabbed his mother to death, execution by stabbing seems appropriate.

 

[Arthur Brain]

If a 6 year old is convicted because he repeatedly stabbed his mother to death, execution by stabbing seems appropriate.

I see. Would you be prepared to carry out this "execution" and stab a six year old child to death?

 

[JudgeRightly]

I see. Would you be prepared to carry out this "execution" and stab a six year old child to death?

Whether I'm prepared to do so has nothing to do with it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Whether I'm prepared to do so has nothing to do with it.

Sure it does. Someone has to perform it so would you be prepared to execute a child by stabbing it to death? It's what you advocate after all.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Sure it does. Someone has to perform it so would you be prepared to execute a child by stabbing it to death? It's what you advocate after all.

Whether I'm prepared to do something or not has nothing to do with whether or not something should be done. Sorry.

If a child has committed a crime worthy of death, then that child should be put to death. If a teen has committed a crime worthy of death, then that teen should be put to death. If an adult has committed a crime worthy of death, then that adult should be put to death.

If a child, teen, or adult, has NOT committed a crime, then there's no reason to put them to death.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Whether I'm prepared to do something or not has nothing to do with whether or not something should be done. Sorry.

If a child has committed a crime worthy of death, then that child should be put to death. If a teen has committed a crime worthy of death, then that teen should be put to death. If an adult has committed a crime worthy of death, then that adult should be put to death.

If a child, teen, or adult, has NOT committed a crime, then there's no reason to put them to death.

Why are you so reticent to answer? You not only advocate that children as young as six should be put to death but you've described a case where it would even be appropriate for the form of execution to be by stabbing. So why don't you step up to the plate and acknowledge that you would be prepared to do as you advocate and be the one who would be prepared to knife a "child criminal" as young as six to their death?

Someone would have to do it after all? What's the matter, getting a bit uncomfortable for you all of a sudden? I don't advocate such barbarism and frankly, it would take someone with an absolutely psychopathic personality to even entertain the thought of plunging a knife into a child to kill them. But someone would have to in order for your idea of "justice" to be carried out wouldn't they?

lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

Whether I'm prepared to do so has nothing to do with it.

Of course it does. Why wouldn't you be prepared to do that which you believe is just, is even Godly, righteous? What would you say about anyone else who failed to do what they believed was unalterably the right thing? Wouldn't you wonder about their conviction on the point?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Of course it does. Why wouldn't you be prepared to do that which you believe is just, is even Godly, righteous? What would you say about anyone else who failed to do what they believed was unalterably the right thing? Wouldn't you wonder about their conviction on the point?

It's telling isn't it? He believes that it's righteous to "execute" young children, even in the form of stabbing them to death and when put on the spot as to whether he'd be prepared to be the one plunging the knife into a child until their life has ebbed away he'll shy away from it.

It's pathetic all ends up.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Why are you so reticent to answer? You not only advocate that children as young as six should be put to death but you've described a case where it would even be appropriate for the form of execution to be by stabbing. So why don't you step up to the plate and acknowledge that you would be prepared to do as you advocate and be the one who would be prepared to knife a "child criminal" as young as six to their death?

Someone would have to do it after all? What's the matter, getting a bit uncomfortable for you all of a sudden? I don't advocate such barbarism and frankly, it would take someone with an absolutely psychopathic personality to even entertain the thought of plunging a knife into a child to kill them. But someone would have to in order for your idea of "justice" to be carried out wouldn't they?

lain:

Of course it does. Why wouldn't you be prepared to do that which you believe is just, is even Godly, righteous? What would you say about anyone else who failed to do what they believed was unalterably the right thing? Wouldn't you wonder about their conviction on the point?

No, my "preparedness" to do something that I advocate has nothing to do with whether it should be done or not.

You both are making a number of logical fallacies with this argument. Please stop.

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, my "preparedness" to do something that I advocate has nothing to do with whether it should be done or not.

You both are making a number of logical fallacies with this argument. Please stop.

No, we aren't. If you advocate something then you should be prepared to carry it out. If you believe that it's "just" to stab a six year old "child criminal" to death then you should have the courage of your convictions to categorically state that you would be prepared to be the one to plunge the knife in. That you squirm around the issue and deflect away says it all.