The Left has become dangerously unhinged.

[Arthur Brain]

I support a system where every reasonable action was taken to ensure that the people that are executed are guilty.
That is why it requires two or three eyewitnesses and the death penalty for anyone that commits perjury in a capital offense trial.

No, 100% proof is unreasonable.

Then you're okay with innocent people being executed as would be inevitable. It's up to you if you're okay with that but it shows how much you care about the shedding of innocent blood.

 

[Stripe]

I get a kick out of people declaring in lieu of argument or demonstrable truth.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Arthur Brain]

You're good at declaring things, but not so good at showing how they are wrong.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

It's hilarious that you have a link in your sig from TH that rips you apart and hardly desperate from his side. Otherwise, you've just made another irony meter contemplate suicide at the very least...

:dizzy:

 

[Arthur Brain]

I get a kick out of people declaring in lieu of argument or demonstrable truth.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Okay, you have gotta be posting this stuff for a bet or something now?

:rotfl:

 

[The Barbarian]

Your conclusions falsely claim causation from a perceived correlation that was generated with faulty data.

Sorry, that's wrong. The data is quite correct. There is no question that states with death penalty laws have higher murder rates.

People who love to kill love to claim the death penalty reduces murder rates:

The question of whether the death penalty is a more effective deterrent than long-term imprisonment has been debated for decades or longer by scholars, policy makers, and the general public. In this Article we report results from a survey of the world's leading criminologists that asked their expert opinions on whether the empirical research supports the contention that the death penalty is a superior deterrent. The findings demonstrate an overwhelming consensus among these criminologists that the empirical research conducted on the deterrence question strongly supports the conclusion that the death penalty does not add deterrent effects to those already achieved by long imprisonment.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20685045?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Correlation does not imply causation It's entirely possible that they both could be correlated to another factor. For example, it could be that states where human life is not valued, would have both higher murder rates and the death penalty. But as you see, it still refutes your belief. Death penalty advocates are not motivated by a desire to protect the innocent, but rather by a lust for vengeance against anyone convicted. This is why they also want to shorten the appeals process. Occasionally, an innocent person, wrongly condemned is able to play the appeals process long enough to be cleared.

​

 

[The Barbarian]

And we have the fact that witnesses are less reliable than forensic evidence, based on the number of people cleared over the years.

 

[The Barbarian]

As you have already noticed, Grosnick (GM) has NO sense of humor, therefore, he (I) cannot appreciate anyone else's supposed sense of humor/wit. I expect a public apology from you and Barb for this unacceptable slight. (the VERB version of the word)

It's a noun, Grossnik.

 

[Stripe]

Sorry, that's wrong. The data is quite correct. There is no question that states with death penalty laws have higher murder rates.

But, of course, this was not what you were challenged over.

Your assertion is that the state killing prompts civilians to murder. However, your initially unsourced graph — you only shared the source after I found it independently and you were shamed into providing the link — hides the truth. There are only 20-30 executions per year, and commonly, states with high murder rates do not execute anybody.

Predictably, when confronted with a sensible objection, you turned to nonsense and obfuscation.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[The Barbarian]

But, of course, this was not what you were challenged over.

Your assertion is that the state killing prompts civilians to murder.

So the evidence suggests. Of course, there is also this:

"Return your sword to its place, for all who will take up the sword, will die by the sword."

And yes, I realize that you don't care about that source.

However, your initially unsourced graph -

Was, as I showed you, entirely correct. Next time, think before you speak.

Eight of the states with lowest murder rates are not death penalty states.
Eight of the states with the highest murder rates are death penalty states.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord

Predictably, when confronted with real data, you turned to nonsense and obfuscation. It's your trademark here.

 

[Town Heretic]

As you have already noticed, Grosnick (GM) has NO sense of humor, therefore, he (I) cannot appreciate anyone else's supposed sense of humor/wit. I expect a public apology from you and Barb for this unacceptable slight. (the VERB version of the word)

Would you accept a slight apology?

 

[Town Heretic]

You're good at declaring things, but not so good at showing how they are wrong.

Ironic bit of parroting noted. Where the response is entirely declarative assumption, as yours was, unbacked by argument or authority, it is entirely within the realm of acceptable responses to give the old hoo-ha, which is what I did.

So there is a second hoo-ha, with accompanying reason as a bonus. :e4e:

 

[Stripe]

So the evidence suggests. Of course, there is also this:"Return your sword to its place, for all who will take up the sword, will die by the sword."And yes, I realize that you don't care about that source.

It's not surprising that this has no relevance to what you were challenged over; what is surprising is how blatant your obfuscation is without the slightest hint of shame.

Eight of the states with the highest murder rates are death penalty states.

Now you might be getting somewhere. :up:

How many of those eight executed someone in the past 10 years? Of those that did, how many was it?

This isn't a rhetorical question, it's what I've been pushing you about the whole time.

I really want to know.

Here's the link, in case you forget it:
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord

Hopefully, when confronted with real data, you won't turn to nonsense and obfuscation as is your common practice.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Yours was, unbacked by argument or authority.

The law. I quoted it; you have not even acknowledged it. Not once. You even went to the effort of deleting it from your reply to me.

So much for no argument: I showed how your reading of John is superficial.

So much for no authority: I quoted the law.

What have you offered, apart from your opinion?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

If that were true, states with the death penalty would quickly have lower murder rates. Instead, they have higher murder rates. So that's out.

You keep peddling this nonsense as if it were true.

Stop. You've already been shown to be wrong.

And not only that, just because they have the death penalty doesn't mean it's enforced, let alone in any reasonable amount of time, and only after months of trials, appeals, and even just waiting to be executed.

No, any deterrent effect is lost by how long the court cases take.

Which is why Solomon, the wisest man to ever live, said...

Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. - Ecclesiastes 8:11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes8:11&version=NKJV

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll stop you there at your first insult.
But I did read enough to discover that you don't give a fig for the healthcare, education and welfare of all those little children that you argue so heatedly for up to their birth.

Unhinged, that is. Quite unhinged. Illogical.

All socialist programs that only harm people. Why would we advocate harming an innocent baby?

And as you know there are over a hundred people alive only because after being wrongly condemned to death,

You keep forgetting that this happened AS PART OF YOUR SYSTEM.

These people were caught up in YOUR system and because of YOUR system were wrongly convicted.

And yet you still advocate it? :dunce:

They managed to play the appeals process long enough for someone to get proof that they were innocent.

The delays inherent in an appellate system destroy the deterrent effect of swift justice. Criminals favor having an appeal process, which encourages crime. Appeals delay punishment and extend the suffering of the victim’s family. An appellate option makes it more difficult for criminals to respect the authority of a judge. Appeals enable criminals to shop for gullible judges. Appeals increase crime; denying appeals reduces crime, the caseload, and thus, judicial errors. And that means fewer innocent people being put on trial wrongly.

And we haven't even gotten into punishments for perjury yet. :think:

If you had your way, all those innocent people would have been killed by the state.

You keep asserting this, and yet you advocate the system in which it happens on a regular basis.

All those innocent people would not have even been caught up in our system.

Your zeal for killing has overcome your concern for the innocent.

Killing those worthy of death is a good thing, according to God. Who are you to say otherwise?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Folks who believe the above are a special kind of stupid.

So it's stupid to think that someone who has been executed can commit more crimes???

:dunce:

A criminal who has committed a crime which attracts the death penalty has nothing more to lose. Such a person can now kill and kill again if it can assist in their escape.

And it's at that point that they should without fail be put to death, because he has forfeited his life in favor of wickedness.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your "system" guarantees no such thing.

In fact, it does.

Your declaring something is just empty assertion.

There's irony for you.

What, you think that's solely due to having the death penalty?

NO. It's a swift and painful death penalty that deters crime.

In that case, why is it that it hasn't worked everywhere else? Look at Barb's figures again.

Because the death penalty we have today is neither swift nor painful. I mean, they even sterilize the needle prior to the injection, as if it will make any difference... The criminal is to die anyways, what does it matter if the needle is sterile or not?

We don't live in ancient times anymore, populations are far bigger

Jethro's system scales quite nicely. The King would appoint up to ten men as judges, who each appoint up to ten men as judges beneath them, and so on corresponding to America’s population until a judge presides over one hundred households in his neighborhood. These Judges of One Hundred appoint two judges under them each over fifty households. These Judges of Fifty appoint judges under them each over ten households.

and the standards of evidence required are more stringent also.

So you think we've come up with a better system than God did? :mock:

We don't just judge a person on the say so of two to three witnesses by way of.

And yet, that's the standard God established.

Who are you, Arthur, to say His standard isn't good enough?

Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness. - Deuteronomy 17:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy17:6&version=NKJV

“One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established. - Deuteronomy 19:15 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy19:15&version=NKJV

[JESUS]But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’[/JESUS] - Matthew 18:16 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew18:16&version=NKJV

This will be the third time I am coming to you. “By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.” - 2 Corinthians 13:1 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Corinthians13:1&version=NKJV

Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. - 1 Timothy 5:19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Timothy5:19&version=NKJV

Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. - Hebrews 10:28 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews10:28&version=NKJV

Stressed out staff,

Dividing the workload to many judges lightens the burden on the judiciary.

No stress there.

Unless the "staff" you're talking about is not part of the judiciary, in which case you should clarify...

pressure,

From what? Not the level of crime, as the crime rate will be extremely low... Not the public, as a good government does not make people groan...

human error,

Since human error is guaranteed in your system, but only a possibility in mine, I don't see why your position is any better...

it's untenable.

Not at all. In fact, it's sustainable, unlike our current system.

What of cases where there's still sufficient doubt no matter who "judges" it?

As opposed to "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," God uses the phrase "two or three" so that we will weigh the evidence. Not all evidence is so cut and dry.

If there's only one witness (not "eye"-witness, just witness, which includes objects) against someone, that is insufficient to establish that someone did something wrong. However, two pieces of circumstancial evidence is also insufficient. On the other hand, two pieces of strong evidence, or even 3 pieces of not so strong evidence, can justly be used to condemn someone.

What of cases where the evidence seems to point towards guilt but the person is innocent and the judge makes an erroneous decision?

As above, 2 weak witnesses is insufficient, but two strong witnesses, or three weak witnesses are sufficient.

That being said, the innocent person isn't going to be silent against false accusation, he's going to present the evidence that he has that will show he is innocent. I'm not sure why you think it would be a problem for him to do so...

However...

I'd like to ask you, what does "common law" say about what the punishment for perjury should be?

Under your system the defendant is carted off to a swift execution without an appeal and all you've got is holding the judge accountable.

Not necessarily. As I said above, the innocent person should be capable of defending himself.

And on top of that, there's the punishment for the perjurer to consider... But I'll wait for you to answer my above question on that first before I get into that.

Well, any judge is human and if he made the call with the evidence pointing towards guilt then what are you going to hold him accountable for? In the meantime there's an innocent person who's dead and who might still be alive if they'd been allowed time to plead their case through appeal.

Again, they can't plead their case while in the courtroom the first time? And you think perjury would be common, but that's based on the current system, not on mine. Again, the discussion of which necessitates an answer from you on the above question.

Oh, well there'd be no chance of error at all there then would there?

:dizzy:

Because the current system doesn't make any errors at all... :mock:

The chances of error would be so small, they would be practically non-existent.

Oh, so pressure would result in a "rightful decision" would it? Do you know how stress affects people in general? It's not in a positive sense at all JR and I've suffered from it. It can result in lack of sleep, depression and all manner of things that can affect good judgement. Geez, do you think people are generally convicted on a whim or something under the current process?

[emoji33]:

Wrong kind of pressure.

Even an evil judge has a reputation to consider.

So? There'd still be plenty of cases where the judges made the wrong decision no matter how seriously they took each case.

No, there wouldn't be "plenty of cases." Perhaps over a century, they might start to add up, but that's over a century. There would be few cases within a short period of time, as compared to the number of cases that occur on a regular basis with the current system.

That's inevitable and under your system mistakes couldn't be rectified so innocent people would go to their death.

Which would happen so infrequently it wouldn't be an issue, as opposed to the current system where it's a regular occurrence. :think:

Oh please, you know as well as I do that mistakes are made.

Duh. Which is why I asked for an example. :think:

Check out the Guildford four & the Birmingham Six and do your own homework.

I will look into this and get back to you. :thumb:

You know fine well that under any human system there'd be errors but unlike you I don't support a system where innocent people would inevitably die under it.

And yet, the alternative, the current system, innocent people are still caught up, and do die as a result of it's inefficiency... :think:

Your argument is being attacked and your position is childishly simplistic.

That's better. Thank you for changing your argument.

You cannot eradicate all cases of wrongful conviction when you rely on humans to make the right decisions at all times, be that the current system or the one you propose.

I agree. Which is why the goal shouldn't be eradicating crime, but reducing it as much as possible, to as close to zero as possible.

Yours would result in more innocent deaths as you would deny the appeals process to overturn such.

No, it wouldn't, because there would be fewer crimes over all. The laws against perjury also tie into this.

Your declaring that "there'd be less crime" et al is once again, just empty assertion.

There will also be fewer false accusations... :think:

Under your system innocent people would die, fact.

Under the current system, many innocent people DO die, by the hands of the criminals the government is unable to deter.

Under my system, those innocent people are protected by the government, because the government is able to deter the criminals would would have otherwise harmed the innocents.

Something that you admit is evil and yet you obviously tolerate. Why is that?

No, what I condemn as evil is putting to death an innocent person, and I also condemn as equally wicked letting a criminal go free.

He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, Both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord. - Proverbs 17:15 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs17:15&version=NKJV

Okay, if you don't want to have your "arguments" called out as being childishly simplistic then please stop making them, else there's reasons why certain cases go to court where evidence is neglible and far from straightforward.

I honestly don't care when people call my arguments childish.

I care (as do the mods) when people make ad hom attacks instead of addressing my argument.

True, which is why I wouldn't support any system that implemented the DP without a 100% proof of guilt for the accused.

The current system implements the death penalty for innocent people by not punishing swiftly and painfully 100% of the criminals.

"Essentially zero" is not zero and if people's lives are at stake then there's no justification for execution even if there's a minutiae of doubt, unless you think that the odd case of wrongful execution isn't so evil after all? Your system doesn't promise a reduction in anything but it does guarantee that innocent people would be put to death.

Oh, and if you're going to make such a long post can you please separate the responses to different posters?

Thanks.

I'll think about it. :think:

There, I've separated the responses. Is that better?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Huh? You ticked an insulting post.... don't try and tell me how nice you are now. :idunno:

"Nice" is overrated.

I was going for inquisitive.

Your apparent answer to a high crime rate is to return to a very few OT laws, mostly (I expect) dishing out corporal and capital punishments.

Don't forget restitution...

We in the UK once had a high % of corporal and capital punishments

"Once"? How far back?

and those dark days were rather high-risk ones, for sure.

For the innocent or for the guilty? If the innocent, then it's probably because it wasn't enforced swiftly.

What you could study is the policies (and politics) of some countries with very low crime rates such as Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland etc.......

So you still have no proposed criminal code that would, for all intents and purposes, make crime a thing of the past.

Typical.

Here is one my pastor drew up a while back. Maybe you could take some pointers...

Spoiler

America’s Criminal Code You shall not murder. Judges will execute those convicted of murder (Gen. 9:6; Ex. 21:12-14; 20:13; Lev. 24:17, 21; Num. 35:16-21, 31; Deut. 19:11-13; 1Ki. 18:22, 39-40; 1 Tim. 1:8-10) including those euthanizing, starving, or aborting (Ex. 21:22-23) human beings from the moment of fertilization to natural death. Judges will flog those guilty of assault and impose restitution for lost income and medical expenses (Ex. 21:18-19), and for permanent injury also require an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, life for life (Lev. 24:19-20). Judges will carry out all corporal and capital punishments swiftly and painfully, within twenty-four hours of conviction; and limit floggings to forty blows (Deut. 25:1-3; Lev. 24:19-20; 19:16-21; 1 Pet. 2:20). Judges will not convict for the use of force in defense of property and the innocent, in escalation to match the perceived threat up to lethal force; nor for purely accidental homicide (Deut. 19:4); will execute those guilty of negligent homicide (Ex. 21:28-30; Deut. 22:8); and flog those who could have avoided otherwise accidental homicide, and anyone committing revenge killing (Num. 35:26-27) of those guilty of capital crimes. You shall not commit adultery. Judges will execute those convicted of bestiality (Ex. 22:19; Lev. 20:15-16); those convicted of incest including with in-laws (Lev. 11-12, 14-15, 17, 19-21); of homosexual acts (Lev. 18:22, 29; 20:13); of child molestation; of kidnapping or rape (Ex. 21:15-16; Deut. 22:25-27; 24:7); and of adultery with a married woman (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22; Ex. 20:14). Judges will flog those convicted of fornication; of public use of vulgar sexual and excretory language; of sexually suggestive dress or behavior; of intoxication; and of possession of pornography. Judges will flog more severely those convicted of transvestism; of public nudity; and of distributing pornography. And judges will flog more severely still those convicted of prostitution; of producing pornography for any use; and of sexual acts in public places. You shall not steal. Judges will flog and require restitution for convicted thieves, negligent recipients of stolen goods, and those who violate contracts (Deut. 25:1-3). Judges will impose double restitution for recovered goods, the return of the goods plus one-hundred percent value (Ex. 22:4, 7-9; 20:15); quadruple for destroyed or sold goods; quintuple for intellectual, irreplaceable and sentimental goods (Ex. 22:1); seven times for insignificant goods (Prov. 6:30-31); and twenty percent for promptly and voluntarily surrendered goods (Lev. 6:1-7). The judge shall impose corporal punishment and life for life penalties for collateral damage from any crime, including bodily injury resulting from the destruction of property which warrants greater than even restitution. A person or his resources causing unforeseeable or unavoidable property damage including by natural disaster without negligence shall pay no restitution, or with negligence shall pay even restitution. Persons taking shared risk shall pay mutual restitution (Ex. 21:32-36; Lev. 24:18). Avoidable accident without negligence, including the malfunction of a maintained resource requires even restitution but with negligence, including by a neglected resource demands double restitution. Gross negligence requires quadruple restitution and intentional destruction demands quintuple restitution. Excepting those executed, judges will sentence those who cannot pay restitution, to indentured servitude for up to seven years with the victim receiving all service or earnings. You shall not bear false witness. Judges will fully punish those convicted of perjury, false confession, credible threat, conspiracy, abetting, or attempted crime, as though they had personally committed the crime (Deut. 19:16-21; 2 Sam. 1:15-16; Ex. 20:16). Judges will flog and impose restitution on those convicted of slander. Judges will flog those in contempt of court, and execute those guilty of treason and violators of court orders which protect victims (Deut. 17:12-13). A man is not innocent until proven guilty. He is guilty the moment he commits a crime, but presumed innocent (Deut. 22:22-27) in court until convicted. Convicting the innocent and acquitting the guilty are equally unjust (Pro. 17:15). A judge, at his discretion, suspends the rights of liberty including the use of weapons, for the credibly accused, and mandatorily confines one facing a likely sentence of maiming or capital punishment, until the rendering of a verdict. Reasonable evidence from two or three witnesses, whether from eyewitnesses, physical, or strong circumstantial evidence, shall suffice for conviction; individual rights shall not supersede the judge's God-given right and responsibility to impose punishment on the guilty. Judges shall not grant nor have special immunity from prosecution; shall not give more lenient punishment to minors; shall not give special recognition to lawyers or experts in the law; may observe and advise other judges during trial [B P]; shall not allow witnesses to swear or give an oath (James 5:12, Mat. 5:34-37; 2 Cor. 1:17); and shall question witnesses directly. Judges shall not accept no-contest pleas or bargains; shall punish criminals for all collateral damage; shall permit witnesses and victims to participate in punishment (Deut. 13:9; 17:7); and shall show no mercy to the guilty (Num. 35:31; Deut. 19:13, 21; Pro. 6:30-31). America's Criminal Code shall be enforced by the King as authorized in The Constitution of America.

(Credit is his for putting it together.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Um, circumstantial evidence is a fair enough basis for arrest in plenty of cases but certainly not for a conviction.

If we went back to a standard of "two or three witnesses, convictions wouldn't take very long, and innocent people would be saved.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I had my way, those innocent people would never have been convicted

:thumb:

by circumstantial circumstances because of the demand to get a conviction.
According to the Bible, there must be two or three eyewitnesses

The Bible never says "eye"-witnesses. The word used means "witness."

Witness:
1. a person who sees an event, typically a crime or accident, take place.
2. evidence; proof.

The standard is not "eye"-witnesses, because God gives a couple examples in the Law where a crime is committed and there is only one person who witnessed the crime, and it's usually the victim (because a criminal isn't going to bear witness against himself...) who is witness, but instead God shows that judgment is still rightly handed down because of evidence against the criminal.

to the crime that are willing to be the ones that are first to put the criminal to death.

I'm glad that you agree that it's "two or three". :thumb:

But don't forget that victims also should be allowed to assist.

This is not how our system works.
Our system demands a conviction whether there is an eyewitness or not.

Nothing wrong with no eyewitnesses if there's sufficient evidence.

Our system demands that a jury of strangers determine guilt instead of a jury of the convicted person's peers (people that actually know the accused).

Juries are not needed for justice.

Our system demands that a convicted person spends so much time in prison that nobody really knows why they are there.

:thumb::thumb::thumb:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

But you're perfectly happy taking away appeals that saved them. You'd have killed them all, if you had your way.

· Appellate judges have a tendency to reverse convictions to demonstrate their own importance.
· A speedy trial and swift sentence are critical to the deterrence of crime.
· The delays inherent in an appellate system destroy the deterrent effect of swift justice.
· Criminals favor having an appeal process, which encourages crime.
· Appeals delay punishment and extend the suffering of the victim’s family.
· An appellate option makes it more difficult for criminals to respect the authority of a judge.
· Appeals enable criminals to shop for gullible judges.
· Appeals increase crime; denying appeals reduces crime, the caseload, and thus, judicial errors.

So Barb, do you favor appeals because you're a criminal? Or just because you've been taught that it's a good idea?

Which would mean that a lot more murderers would never be found guilty. So there would be more injustice on that end as well.

This we agree on.

"Eyewitnesses" is not the standard given by God. The word isn't even in the Bible.

Your system would let more killers go free,

Agreed.

but if a person was wrongly convicted, would make it nearly impossible for him to later prove himself innocent.

Impossible for him, yes. But not impossible for those close or related to him, in which case the judge could still be found to be at fault, and punished.

Thank God for that. The purpose of justice is to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent. Your way would do the opposite.

His system? Yes, I agree.

Tell that to the family of Nicolle Simpson.

That's not what "peers" mean. Maybe you should go and find out?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, they would never have been convicted if I had my way.

Agreed.

Yes, it is better for murderers to go free when there are no eyewitnesses than for innocent to be found guilty on nothing more than circumstantial evidence.

God disagrees. It's not ok at all.

He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, Both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord. - Proverbs 17:15 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs17:15&version=NKJV

__________
Peer
1. An equal; one of the same rank. A man may be familiar with his peers.
2. An equal in excellence or endowments.
3. A companion; a fellow; an associate.
4. A nobleman; as a peer of the realm; the house of peers, so called because noblemen and barons were originally considered as the companions of the king, like Latin comes, count. In England, persons belonging to the five degrees of nobility are all peers.
__________​

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like all the rest.

It's just a fact. As you learned, death penalty states have more murders.

:deadhorse:

Manipulating data to make it what you want it to say is not ok when it comes to moral truths, especially when you're committing a lie of omission to do it.

Do you not see why? If the state devalues life, the people of that state will tend to do so, too.

No, a just society values innocent lives over criminal lives, and justly enforces the death penalty, corporal punishment, and restitution against criminals who would kill or harm the innocent because of their valuing innocent life.

Today, we have crimes such as abortion and euthenasia for humans because we have DEvalued life.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you had your way, they'd be dead.

:deadhorse:

If I had my way, the innocent would be protected as much as is possible, and they wouldn't have been caught up in the system in the first place.

:deadhorse:

So your way would have the guilty go free and any wrongly convicted people die. Not a good idea.

This we agree on.

Do you not realize that eyewitness testimony has been shown to be often wrong?

Which is why God's standard is not "eyewitnesses."

Over the past quarter-century, more than 1,400 people convicted of serious crimes have been proved innocent, according to the University of Michigan Law School’s National Registry of Exonerations. But why were these people wrongly convicted? In a great many cases, one significant factor was faulty eyewitness identifications.
https://www.twincities.com/2015/02/20/albright-rakoff-see-minus-the-trouble-with-eyewitnesses/[/QUOTE]

 

[JudgeRightly]

You just don't get it, do you.......

Says the one indicating that dead people can commit crimes...

:dunce:

Once a Capital Crime with certain death sentence has been committed there is little possibility of the offender giving self up......

So?

:think:

Are you seriously trying to make the argument that we shouldn't put to death criminals who commit capital crimes just because they won't turn themselves in?

Because that's a whole new level of stupid.

they have nothing to lose by killing as often as they think they need to.

Which is why they should be caught, tried, convicted, and PUT TO DEATH, so they do not harm the rest of their society. They clearly don't value their lives enough to give them any reason to keep it.

But the history of innocents being executed is enough for a reasonable repeal of all death sentences.

No. It's not.

It's a sign that the death penalty has lost its deterrent effect because it is A) not swift enough and B) not painful enough.

And the history of mentally disabled folks being executed is further reason for a repeal.

Let's set up an example.

Let's say that a mentally disabled person (yes, he or she is still a person) is cared for on the third floor of a mental institution and he's somehow figured out how to open the window to where he's able to lean out over the edge. His nurse comes in and sees him leaning out very far, and runs over to pull him back in. He hears her and pulls away and turns around to hug her, and she is able to walk to him and hug him back, and when she does, he wraps his arms around her and turns side to side because he missed her, but when he releases her, momentum carries her backwards, when she trips and falls through the window to the ground, where she breaks her neck and dies. He would not be tried for murder in this case, because his intent was not to kill her, but simply to hug her.

However, lets say instead of hugging her, He grabs her when she approaches and then forces her out the window, where she falls, breaks her neck, and dies. That is murder, and he would be executed for murder, because he made a conscious decision to push her out the open window. He may not have understood the consequences of doing so, but he still forced her through the window.

That's what we did, and why we did.....

:AMR:

 

[JudgeRightly]

You support a system where innocent people would be wrongfully executed. Unless you agree that only 100% proof of guilt should be ascertained before sentencing then you're okay with innocent people being victims. End of.

See, the problem with that is that, not only is it unreasonable, ig goes against what God says.

“But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter.For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her. - Deuteronomy 22:25-27 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy22:25-27&version=NKJV

The man deserves to die, even though there was only the victim as the eyewitness, which is why two or three eyewitnesses is not the standard, nor does it require 100% proof that the criminal raped the woman, just her testimony against him and any other witnesses (evidences, proofs) to condemn him.

Obviously, he would be able to defend himself in court, and his testimony could be compared to hers, and the judge would be able to determine if he committed the crime. If the witnesses (evidence) points to him raping her, then he would be executed.

However, if the witnesses point to him not having raped her, then she would be executed, because she bore false witness of a capital crime against the man.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Then you're okay with innocent people being executed as would be inevitable. It's up to you if you're okay with that but it shows how much you care about the shedding of innocent blood.

You seem to believe that judges in God's criminal justice system would be completely incompetent, and unable to determine right from wrong, innocent from guilty. Why is that?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Is there really any reason a mentally disabled person should not be executed if that person murders another person?

There is a reason for George's actions at the end of Of Mice and Men

Of Mice and Men Curley's wife enters the barn and tries to speak to Lennie, admitting that she is lonely and how her dreams of becoming a movie star are crushed, revealing her personality. After finding out about Lennie's habit, she offers to let him stroke her hair, but panics and begins to scream when she feels his strength. Lennie becomes frightened, and unintentionally breaks her neck thereafter and runs away. When the other ranch hands find the corpse, George realizes that their dream is at an end. George hurries to find Lennie, hoping he will be at the meeting place they designated in case he got into trouble. George meets Lennie at the place, their camping spot before they came to the ranch. The two sit together and George retells the beloved story of the dream, knowing it is something they'll never share. He then shoots and kills Lennie

​

I don't agree with George's killing of Lenny, it should have been taken to a judge, and the judge should have condemned Lenny to death and he should have been executed, but I do like that he was executed, even though it was for the wrong reason.

 

[genuineoriginal]

There is no question that states with death penalty laws have higher murder rates.

Check out the correlations from this site:
Spurious Correlations
Each one is just as valid as yours.

 

[Arthur Brain]

See, the problem with that is that, not only is it unreasonable, ig goes against what God says.

“But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter.For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her. - Deuteronomy 22:25-27 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy22:25-27&version=NKJV

The man deserves to die, even though there was only the victim as the eyewitness, which is why two or three eyewitnesses is not the standard, nor does it require 100% proof that the criminal raped the woman, just her testimony against him and any other witnesses (evidences, proofs) to condemn him.

Obviously, he would be able to defend himself in court, and his testimony could be compared to hers, and the judge would be able to determine if he committed the crime. If the witnesses (evidence) points to him raping her, then he would be executed.

However, if the witnesses point to him not having raped her, then she would be executed, because she bore false witness of a capital crime against the man.

If you think it's an "unreasonable" standard to establish proof of guilt beyond doubt before convicting someone to their death then you're tolerating the inevitable loss of innocent life. No matter what system is in place and how efficient it is there would still be mistakes, that's just fact.