Should Children Be Executed If They've...

[Arthur Brain]

Your argument has nothing to do with neuroscience, it is purely an emotional argument.

Sure it does. There's reasons why society doesn't regard or allow children to be treat in the same way as adults, part of which is their underdeveloped brain at so young an age. Is it emotive when cranks advocate the swift, painful and public execution of children? Sure, because most adults of any persuasion are developed enough in the neurological area to call it out for what it is. Sick and barbaric.

You didn't answer the other question which once again is telling. Would you be willing to stab a "guilty" six year old to death?

 

[Arthur Brain]

You seem to have no idea that there is a difference between an innocent person and a guilty person.

I recognize the difference between adults and kids and the obvious lack of neurological development in the latter to be regarded as criminals, like the vast majority in society and also under law.

My remark was addressed to the poster that may be the biggest proponent of abortion on this site.
But, for some reason, you don't argue against him.

I know who it was addressed to and I remarked on it. His comments in regarding the killing of born children were on point and valid.

 

[Town Heretic]

The innocents would be killed deliberately by those murderers you let live

No, they wouldn't. I wouldn't let convicted killers back into the general population.

So on the one hand we have a demonstrable wrong that we can correct and correct without releasing murderers back into society and on the other hand we have, "Oops. Sorry about killing your dad. We really thought he was guilty at the time. Our bad."

and the others that follow their example after seeing that they are not put to death for their crimes.

Are you under the impression that murderers arrive at their decision after a cost/benefit analysis? :think:

That's remarkable, as beliefs go. What do you think about UFOs, flat earth, upright politicians? I'm just wondering how deep and far that impulse goes in you.

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, it doesn't.
Committing a capital crime requires committing an act that is a capital offense.

So if a four year old trips his mother up and she breaks her neck and dies as a result is said four year old to be charged with a capital crime and executed?

It's almost astonishing to see this type of lunacy on display. Murder has to have intent. Otherwise it isn't murder.

It's almost fascinating to see such callous legalism as well as complete *crickets* from these advocates for executing children when it comes to their being put on the spot when asked if they'd be prepared to do it themselves.

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, they wouldn't. I wouldn't let convicted killers back into the general population.

So on the one hand we have a demonstrable wrong that we can correct and correct without releasing murderers back into society and on the other hand we have, "Oops. Sorry about killing your dad. We really thought he was guilty at the time. Our bad."


Are you under the impression that murderers arrive at their decision after a cost/benefit analysis? :think:

That's remarkable, as beliefs go. What do you think about UFOs, flat earth, upright politicians? I'm just wondering how deep and far that impulse goes in you.

As I recall, GO believes that people can "train" themselves to fall in love with inanimate objects so there's a hint...he can correct me on that if mistaken although I doubt he'll want to tread that path again.

lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

You wouldn't do it, but you would expect someone else to kill a 6 year old. Is that right?

Seems to be the thing with these people. They'll bluster away about how righteous it is to kill a "criminal" child, even to the point of stabbing but when put on the spot...you'll get a more direct answer from a lawnmower.

 

[The Horn]

Murder is unstoppable. Laws against murdering born people are enforceable . Laws against abortion are not . How many of the countless illegal abortions which happened before Roe v Wade were criminally prosecuted ? Hardly any . There was no way to enforce the law . It will be just the same if abortion becomes illegal again in America . An exercise in futility .
There will always be murder.
Laws against murder will not stop any murder.
The only thing that has been proven to lower the rate of murder (and abortion is murder) is to have a swift and public execution of the murderer.
This prevents the murderer from doing it again and puts fear into the hearts of the other people that might consider being a murderer as well.

Abortion is just plain barbaric.
The methods used in the past included burning children to Moloch and exposing children to the elements.
Using a curette and a vacuum doesn't make killing children a civilized act.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

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.

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

This is based on a false dichotomy, that the only two options are execute them or release them. No one is calling for setting murderers free. Life without parole resolves the issues adequately.

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.

And yet states that have the death penalty still tend to have higher murder rates than those that do not.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterr...alty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

I never said the death penalty "stops" crime.

I said it deters crime. Huge difference.

You are right, I botched that comparison. It is even possible that murder and crime were lower in ISIS-controlled regions, using the same justice and execution methods you propose and even the same reasons that are proposed "It is God's way". But again would you really want to live there?

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?

No. We have seen evidence in recent history that totalitarian regimes with no civil rights using fear and terror can come close to it but again, who would want to live there?

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

Yes, I have to those able to deal with abstract principles.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

The innocents would be killed deliberately by those murderers you let live and the others that follow their example after seeing that they are not put to death for their crimes.

False dichotomy, executing them or releasing them are not the only two options. Life without parole protects those innocents just as well while protecting the state from the crime of executing the innocent.

All justice systems will have some guilty who fail to be convicted. If too many are failing to be convicted that is a problem with your process not how you are punishing them in the end.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

The only thing that has been proven to lower the rate of murder (and abortion is murder) is to have a swift and public execution of the murderer.
This prevents the murderer from doing it again and puts fear into the hearts of the other people that might consider being a murderer as well.

Can you provide a historical example of this proof?

 

[CabinetMaker]

You are moving the goalposts

Not even a little bit.

Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.[3] The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the result is changed, too.

​

According to the Bible, crime (sin) does not require intent, it only requires an act.

Leviticus 4:13 13 And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty;​

Both examples I asked you to look at are straight out of the Bible. Try again.

 

[Stripe]

Name them and support them.

With pleasure!

You've committed the fallacy of non sequitur.

The willingness of a man to do A has no bearing on the rightness of A.

For example, it is perfectly fine to eat McDonald's. My decision to not eat McDonald's has no impact on the assertion.

"It doesn't follow."

The death penalty is good. My unwillingness to act as executioner has no bearing on that assertion.

A rational response might be an accusation of hypocrisy, but you chose to go with irrationality.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[CabinetMaker]

Abortion is not the same thing as murdering a born human . And it is unstoppable and uncontrollable unlike laws against murder . Laws against abortion are simply unenforceable, unlike laws about murdering born people .
But executing children is just plain barbaric .

Abortion as a form of birth control is equally barbaric.

 

[JudgeRightly]

This is based on a false dichotomy, that the only two options are execute them or release them. No one is calling for setting murderers free. Life without parole resolves the issues adequately.

You're right, I should have worded that better.

The point I was trying to make was that when there is no death penalty, the only alternative is to give them "life," which, compared to hell, is freedom. In addition to that, when criminals who deserve death are put in prisons instead of executed, they retain the possibility (however slight) of breaking out of prison and committing crime again (and this also applies to those who get out of prison for "good behavior," however rare). With such a system, criminals (as a rule of thumb) are all but guaranteed to go back to their life of crime.

And yet states that have the death penalty still tend to have higher murder rates than those that do not.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterr...alty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

Was it you who posted this in the other thread? Or was it someone else? I don't remember...

Either way, the point remains to be addressed that the death penalty is not a deterrent in those states because the punishments for the crimes are neither swift nor painful, and hardly enforced at that.

You are right, I botched that comparison. It is even possible that murder and crime were lower in ISIS-controlled regions, using the same justice and execution methods you propose and even the same reasons that are proposed "It is God's way". But again would you really want to live there?

Traditional violent crime is indeed rare in places such as Saudi Arabia due to their enforcement of a swift and certain death penalty.

However, could we please avoid conflating "sharia law" with "Biblical law"? Sharia law is a perversion of God's law, and is unjust in many ways.

To steer away from this conflation, let's look at Singapore, who's population is around the size of Los Angeles, CA. Comparatively, they have a much lower crime rate than Los Angeles, due to the fact that they cane criminals, and do in fact have the death penalty, though it's hardly needed due to the low crime rates.

For example:

In 1993, LA (pop. ~3.56 mil.) had 1100 murders (among however many other violent crimes.

In that SAME YEAR, Singapore (pop. ~3.29 mil.), with their harsh punishments and death penalty, had only 58 murders.

http://factsanddetails.com/southeast-asia/Singapore/sub5_7c/entry-3761.html

No. We have seen evidence in recent history that totalitarian regimes with no civil rights using fear and terror can come close to it but again, who would want to live there?

So you would agree with me that the goal of trying to stop or prevent crime is largely ineffective in, and I use this term loosely, "normal" societies?

 

[JudgeRightly]

You may want to fix your quote....

 

[Stripe]

It amazes me how people say that the laws of the old testament are abolished, until it suits them!

And this is a straw man fallacy. Are you lot going for the full set?

This is what we believe: The law has not been abolished (notwithstanding the repeal of symbolic cleanliness statutes).

The law is still in full force.

What you are confused about is that the law is no longer the path presented to men to gain salvation. Salvation is through the confession of Jesus Christ as Lord and saviour, not through the law as previously.

As I said earlier, Jesus said those without sin cast the first stone!

And this is the passage people use to uphold their anti-Bible assertion that the law has been eradicated.

Then they assert their own standard of punishment for crimes. They don't condone "he without sin" or "go and sin no more" when asked what should happen to a murderer.

Hypocrites.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Then you're seeing things.

That's not raising the bar, that's lowering the argument to an absurd play at popular misconception and irrationality. But hey, you go with what you have left, eh?

Town loves to respond to things people don't say and waffle in reply to things they do say.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

False dichotomy, executing them or releasing them are not the only two options. Life without parole protects those innocents just as well while protecting the state from the crime of executing the innocent.

So what if the criminal escapes prison?

All justice systems will have some guilty who fail to be convicted. If too many are failing to be convicted that is a problem with your process not how you are punishing them in the end.

Which is why God said to weigh the evidence, using two or three witnesses to establish guilt.

If guilt for a capital crime can be established using two strong witnesses or three good witnesses, then the person can rightly be put to death. If no good witnesses can be found, then no guilt can be established, and the person will escape punishment.

 

[Town Heretic]

Town loves to respond to things people don't say and waffle in reply to things they do say.

Stripe loves to talk about me...but it's like listening to the blind describe the moon. He knows it's there, but he really doesn't see it.

You've committed the fallacy of non sequitur.

No I haven't. I think sometimes you just run your finger down the page of whatever list of logical fallacies you found somewhere once, on the internet or in a little pamphlet maybe. Maybe someone gave it to you as a present, or out of pity. Who knows? Anyway, mostly it seems like you just run a finger down it until you see a word you like and that's what you write.

It's peculiar.

The willingness of a man to do A has no bearing on the rightness of A.

Rather, it mostly reflects what he actually believes, as opposed to what he only wants to or needs to believe, or wants or needs others to believe he believes.

For example, it is perfectly fine to eat McDonald's. My decision to not eat McDonald's has no impact on the assertion.

But that's not the parallel. The parallel is that you believe people should eat at McDonald's. That God meant for them to, or you say they should, and He did and does. That it's actually good that they do. But then you never will or do eat there yourself.

My unwillingness to act as executioner has no bearing on that assertion.

Sure it does. Because the man who expects others to do a thing he calls right, or just, or necessary, and reserves a different course of action for himself isn't being honest with at least one party to the conversation. He doesn't believe himself.

And neither should we.

 

[Stripe]

Executing children or teenagers is just plain BARBARIC . Wrong. Inexcusable. Unacceptable .
Unworthy of any nation that calls itself "civilized ".

Says the pro-abort.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk