You seem to have missed this post (which was intended for drbrumley), which explains that Jesus' encounter with the adulteress was NOT the first time He had forgiven an adulterer/ess and not required the death penalty, nor did He abolish the death penalty at those times either.
No, your claim is unfounded, that Jesus made it unnecessary that the death penalty be enforced, simply because it doesn't fit with the other times Jesus forgave adulterers without requiring the death penalty for them, yet still expected adulterers/esses to be put to death.
If you belong to a religion that supports the execution of people who are 'beyond reason of the mind' then it has to be far far from anything that Jesus would have supported.
In the fiction you quoted there was nowhere that could have looked after, protected and supported his simple friend, and you've turned it into an excuse to kill mentally disabled folks? For shame.
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...
All socialist programs that only harm people. Why would we advocate harming an innocent baby?
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:
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:
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.
Killing those worthy of death is a good thing, according to God. Who are you to say otherwise?
NO. It's a swift and painful death penalty that deters crime.
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?
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.
So you think we've come up with a better system than God did? :mock:
And yet, that's the standard God established.
Who are you, Arthur, to say His standard isn't good enough?
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...
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...
Since human error is guaranteed in your system, but only a possibility in mine, I don't see why your position is any better...
Not at all. In fact, it's sustainable, unlike our current system.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Wrong kind of pressure.
Even an evil judge has a reputation to consider.
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.
Which would happen so infrequently it wouldn't be an issue, as opposed to the current system where it's a regular occurrence. :think:
Duh. Which is why I asked for an example. :think:
I will look into this and get back to you. :thumb:
And yet, the alternative, the current system, innocent people are still caught up, and do die as a result of it's inefficiency... :think:
That's better. Thank you for changing your argument.
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.
No, it wouldn't, because there would be fewer crimes over all. The laws against perjury also tie into this.
There will also be fewer false accusations... :think:
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.
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.
For the innocent or for the guilty? If the innocent, then it's probably because it wasn't enforced swiftly.
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.
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.
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.
Nothing wrong with no eyewitnesses if there's sufficient evidence.
· 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?
This we agree on.
"Eyewitnesses" is not the standard given by God. The word isn't even in the Bible.
Agreed.
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.
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.
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 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:
This we agree on.
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/
Gotcha........!
I thought you believed in a humane (quick and painless) death penalty?
You're beginning to leak your true mind, methinks?
Interesting.....
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.
Gotcha.......!
In your scenario it could have been any mentally disabled person who did those things.
I can see that in your World the mentally disabled would ALL have a bleak future.
Keep going......... because more folks can then see the kind of World that you would favour.
There's plenty of Christians that would want to stop your World from happening, I think.
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
Yes, they're not capable of rationalizing like an adult and not responsible for their actions. Please don't use "of Mice And men" to support your position as it absolutely doesn't and the book doesn't deserve to be mischaracterized in such an asinine fashion. George kills Lennie to prevent him from being lynched by an ignorant mob, not because he deserved to be killed.
Short and clear.
Your showing the cracks in your theocracy now.
You want to execute criminals painfully, execute the mentally disabled........ why, next you could be calling for killing the physically disabled.....? Where is your idea of a Christian World heading?
....... and you rush to grasp the Old Testament Laws in order to justify it all, whilst ignoring all the others that don't suit you?
This all looks very unhinged to me, and probably looks that way to many Christians as well.
Says the one indicating that dead people can commit crimes...
:dunce:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Your example fails. Murder is the premeditated killing of another person with malice aforethought and no way under law would your scenario be classed as such. It would be manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility at "best" and likely not even that.
Yes, they're not capable of rationalizing like an adult and not responsible for their actions. Please don't use "of Mice And men" to support your position as it absolutely doesn't and the book doesn't deserve to be mischaracterized in such an asinine fashion. George kills Lennie to prevent him from being lynched by an ignorant mob, not because he deserved to be killed.
The Law was written in such a manner that the majority of people who commit capital offenses would get off on just that technicality (lack of witnesses).
To begin, technicality is a colloquialism. It's not a term of art with a hard definition at law. But it tends to be used to describe something more along the lines of a failure to follow procedure in the chain of evidence where that leads to the evidence being excluded even though it could establish guilt, or the failure to file a claim within time or exception could be a defeat for the filer resting upon a technicality.
What you're speaking to is a lack of evidence to convict. And that is as it should be by any standard. I don't believe the Mosaic law was written to accomplish more or less than justice within the confines of what could be done on the point of consideration. Absent DNA and other forms of forensics, what more was there as damning? And corroboration makes sense as well. It was, in its day, as solid a standard as you could ask.
This would prevent a lot of innocent people from being put to death for crimes they did not commit and would let a lot of people that are guilty get away with it as well.
If you belong to a religion that supports the execution of people who are 'beyond reason of the mind' then it has to be far far from anything that Jesus would have supported.
If we put animals to death for killing people, is there really any reason a mentally disabled person should not be executed if that person kills another person?
Murder is the premeditated killing of another person with malice aforethought and no way under law would your scenario be classed as such. It would be manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility at "best" and likely not even that.
If we put animals to death for killing people, is there really any reason a mentally disabled person should not be executed if that person kills another person?
What you're speaking to is a lack of evidence to convict. And that is as it should be by any standard. I don't believe the Mosaic law was written to accomplish more or less than justice within the confines of what could be done on the point of consideration. Absent DNA and other forms of forensics, what more was there as damning? And corroboration makes sense as well. It was, in its day, as solid a standard as you could ask.
To put the situation in modern terms, a group of people file a police report accusing someone of a capital offense and then are nowhere to be seen when the trial begins.
The accused goes before the judge, the judge sees that there is no one to testify, the accused goes free.
While Jesus was on earth, He followed the letter and spirit of the Law.
Jesus would never violate the Law to condemn the woman even though He knew the truth about her guilt.
Hebrews 9:27
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
What would happen to the accused woman at the final judgment is not at issue.
The issue is whether Jesus would violate the Law to condemn a woman without the two or three witnesses that the Law demanded.
Deuteronomy 19:2-6
2 Thou shalt separate three cities for thee in the midst of thy land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it.
3 Thou shalt prepare thee a way, and divide the coasts of thy land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee to inherit, into three parts, that every slayer may flee thither.
4 And this is the case of the slayer, which shall flee thither, that he may live: Whoso killeth his neighbour ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past;
5 As when a man goeth into the wood with his neighbour to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon his neighbour, that he die; he shall flee unto one of those cities, and live:
6 Lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him; whereas he was not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past.
Anyone guilty of accidentally killing another can flee to a city set aside for refuge, but the person must spend the rest of his life there.
Numbers 35:26-28
26 But if the slayer shall at any time come without the border of the city of his refuge, whither he was fled;
27 And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill the slayer; he shall not be guilty of blood:
28 Because he should have remained in the city of his refuge until the death of the high priest: but after the death of the high priest the slayer shall return into the land of his possession.
Deuteronomy 19:2-6
2 Thou shalt separate three cities for thee in the midst of thy land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it.
3 Thou shalt prepare thee a way, and divide the coasts of thy land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee to inherit, into three parts, that every slayer may flee thither.
4 And this is the case of the slayer, which shall flee thither, that he may live: Whoso killeth his neighbour ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past;
5 As when a man goeth into the wood with his neighbour to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon his neighbour, that he die; he shall flee unto one of those cities, and live:
6 Lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him; whereas he was not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past.
Anyone guilty of accidentally killing another can flee to a city set aside for refuge, but the person must spend the rest of his life there.
Numbers 35:26-28
26 But if the slayer shall at any time come without the border of the city of his refuge, whither he was fled;
27 And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill the slayer; he shall not be guilty of blood:
28 Because he should have remained in the city of his refuge until the death of the high priest: but after the death of the high priest the slayer shall return into the land of his possession.
lain: