The Left has become dangerously unhinged.

[Stripe]

Seeing as Jesus never called for the death of anyone, that's both logically and factually wrong.

You're not very good at this whole reading thing, aren't you?

Jesus wrote the law. You know, the one that endorsed the death penalty. You do realize that using the death penalty requires killing people, right?

Odd, then, that His one interaction with the issue during his ministry on Earth, he prevented the death penalty from being imposed.

Not odd at all. He followed the law. You know, the one that endorses the death penalty, but not in situations like the one Jesus faced. He was smart enough to figure that out without being told. You've been told numerous times, but insist on your agenda over scripture.

We're just going to have to ignore your modern revision and stick with the Bible.

As you should have figured out by now, letting murderers go is a poor way to prevent people being killed.

You think one has to be the one who detains a person in order to release them?

Non sequitur.

Look it up. You need to learn to avoid them.

Think about it for a while; it might come to you.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Rosenritter]

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.

How did they manage to catch only the woman in adultery? Isn't there usually a "partner in crime?"

 

[Stripe]

How did they manage to catch only the woman in adultery? Isn't there usually a "partner in crime?"

Especially as she was caught "in the very act."

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
By that logic, a two-year old who encountered a loaded gun and accidentally kills someone, should be executed for his crime.

That kind of eagerness to kill should bother any rational person.

No. The law covers this type of scenario.

A child who doesn't understand what his actions did is innocent, but an adult who is similarly unable to understand it is guilty? This contradicts the law of the Jews who for example, did not hold a person guilty of a crime, if he carelessly set a fire that got out of control and harmed others.

And few convictions would happen today under the rule of law as the Jewish system worked:

Jewish law went even further in securing its primary objective of safeguarding judicial processes against error, especially from the error of convicting an innocent person. It was therefore not sufficient to merely present two eye-witnesses; they had to agree in their testimony concerning major and minor details. This was a foolproof method, for each witness was examined alone and
thus any opportunity for a conspiracy was removed thereby.

Thus the more questions the judges asked, the more were they praised. One judge, for instance,wanted to
know the characteristics of a fig tree under which the crime was allegedly committed. When the answers of the witnesses did not correspond to each other, their testimony was entirely invalidated.
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2985&context=jclc

On one hand, you're eager to shut down the appeals process by which over a hundred wrongly condemned people finally managed to demonstrate their innocence, and on the other hand, you want to set a standard for conviction what would let most murderers go.

Your system would fail to punish most murderers, thus encouraging murders, while at the same time more frequently killing the wrongly convicted.

Your eagerness to kill and to tolerate killing by others is not in accord with God's law.

The fortunate thing is that your weird misconception of Mosaic law has zero chance of being implemented.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

The fact you missed is that states with the death penalty have higher murder rates. Why you would want higher murder rates is beyond me.



As you just learned, it matters a lot.






In other words, you'd be willing to abridge the very appeals system that over a hundred innocent people used to stay alive long enough to prove their innocence. Again, I find that enthusiasm for taking innocent lives incomprehensible.

Far-left Liberals look good in red.

 

[Town Heretic]

Far-left Liberals look good in red.

What's next, going to go to a cemetery and dare a resident to knock that chip off of your shoulder? lain:

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian observes:

It's a pity he doesn't think.

By that logic, a two-year old who encountered a loaded gun and accidentally kills someone, should be executed for his crime.

As you should have learned, just not the case.

A child who doesn't understand what his actions did is innocent, but an adult who is similarly unable to understand it is guilty? This contradicts the law of the Jews who for example, did not hold a person guilty of a crime, if he carelessly set a fire that got out of control and harmed others. And few convictions would happen today under the rule of law as the Jewish system worked: Jewish law went even further in securing its primary objective of safeguarding judicial processes against error, especially from the error of convicting an innocent person. It was therefore not sufficient to merely present two eye-witnesses; they had to agree in their testimony concerning major and minor details. This was a foolproof method, for each witness was examined alone and thus any opportunity for a conspiracy was removed thereby. Thus the more questions the judges asked, the more were they praised. One judge, for instance,wanted to know the characteristics of a fig tree under which the crime was allegedly committed. When the answers of the witnesses did not correspond to each other, their testimony was entirely invalidated. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2985&context=jclc

This all might be interesting if you had respected the conversation.

Hint: We do not suggest that governments establish the law of the Hebrews. We advocate laws based on the idea that God's standards still apply and we should be smart enough to figure them out.

In a general case, a government should outlaw theft, adultery, murder, rape, kidnapping and perjury, with the death penalty for capital crimes. How it goes about wording its laws would depend on context and tradition.

On one hand, you're eager to shut down the appeals process by which over a hundred wrongly condemned people finally managed to demonstrate their innocence, and on the other hand, you want to set a standard for conviction what would let most murderers go.

Nope. You found a Web site with ideas we do not endorse.

Try discussing things with the people here, rather than making up things for them to believe.

You could start by honestly responding to scripture, which you hold in contempt.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

What's next, going to go to a cemetery and dare a resident to knock that chip off of your shoulder? lain:

I tried that a couple of weeks ago, and for some odd reason, I couldn't find even one single taker. I'm gonna try again in another week or so. However, this time I think I'll go in the dead of night and chip away at a few of their tombstones. That ought to rile them up and raring to go at it. I'll keep you updated.
:rip:

 

[Stripe]

Are we still allowed to mock banned people?

:noid:

 

[JudgeRightly]

If God abhors the shedding of innocent blood then I'd wager He's a bit more than "saddened" when innocent people are put to death because certain folk don't think absolute proof is that big a deal before "flipping the switch"...

Arthur, if we compare your standard of "absolute proof" with God's standard of "two or three witnesses," who's standard do you think its better? Yours or God's?

Shoulda already been obvious.

Unfortunately, no.

You can dress it up any which way you like, you are tolerant of innocent people being killed in a system where the yardstick of guilt isn't proven 100%.

Question 1: Arthur, and anyone else who reads this, if you were shown a convincing argument that my system would decrease the number of innocent people killed every year, would you adopt it as your position?

I'm not arguing that you favour a system that intentionally kills the innocent and never have. I'm saying you're okay with a percentage of people being wrongfully convicted and executed because you are.

Question 2: I need you to, or at least I am hoping you will, acknowledge that a system that tends to acquit murderers is a system that thereby leads to the killing of the innocent. Can you do that?

You admit yourself that any system would make mistakes so don't try to change my argument into something it never was.

That's what it seems like you were saying. But I'll try not to put words in your mouth.

Already have. I've never said the current system is perfect because it isn't.

See my two questions above.

So what if it's "not on purpose"? Scant consolation to the wrongfully accused victim and their family where all you could offer is a posthumous pardon. If you're on about offenders being let out to re-offend then I've already addressed concerns in that area and there does need to be something done about technicalities and loopholes where this happens.

So then it should be easy to answer the questions above.

It's not as regular as you seem to be arguing but as above, still needs addressing.

Oh please. If you're going to live in the OT then there's no reasoning with you.

"Live in the OT?"

Arthur, has God's standard of justice changed?

Do you not think that with the advent of advancements in technology and police procedures that God wouldn't support proper evidence to convict besides eyewitness testimony? You do realize how notoriously unreliable that is in of itself right?

Again, Arthur, I ask: if we compare your standard of "absolute proof" with God's standard of "two or three witnesses," who's standard do you think its better? Yours or God's?

Um, yeah, nice soundbite.

lain:

Well no, not when innocent people are killed because of the former and you really were born two thousand years or so "ahead" of your time...

See question 1 above.

Yeah, you do realize that "The Shawshank Redemption" was a story right? (Oh, and yes I know the protagonist was wrongfully convicted) Otherwise get a grip. By your reasoning Death Row would be constantly evacuated...

lain:

1) as far as I can remember, I've never seen SR.
2) There wouldn't be a death row in my system, because punishments would be carried out within 24 hours of conviction.

You don't protect the innocent by having a system in place that would still convict and kill them.

See the two questions above.

Under yours the innocent wouldn't even have the chance to appeal a faulty conviction because they'd be carted off to a hangman or whatever before they could consult any other option. You're yet another armchair legalist.

See question 2.

Well no, Barb and TH have schooled you on the subject but like most armchair experts you won't listen to the faulty reasoning in your argument. You parrot on and assert things without any real fact and TH especially took you apart on this very subject some pages back.

See question 1.

Perjury should be a very serious crime and anyone caught wrongfully accusing someone or deliberately giving false and incriminating evidence should be severely punished. None of this has any bearing on innocent people being convicted and executed under your system, something you'll gladly tolerate.

Of course it does.

Criminals would be deterred from pointing at an innocent person when put on trial, further decreasing the number of innocent people put on trial.

The current system is not "mindless". It has it's faults but it's still better than your ill thought out "improvements".

See question 1.

God's standard of justice doesn't include innocent people being sent to their deaths when such could be avoided unless you think God doesn't abhor the shedding of innocent blood? The fact that you're using childish smileys and don't seem to think it's a big deal says a lot about you.

See question 2.

Well, if there's no excuse for any injustice today then there's no excuse for anyone being executed without a hundred percent proof of guilt then is there? That is, if you don't want innocent blood to be shed?

Again, compare your standards with God's. Which is better?

No, but it's far more reliable than eyewitness testimony alone, something you seem to be happy enough with.

I do not nor have I ever said "eyewitnesses." I even pointed out to GO that "eyewitnesses" is not the standard God uses. Just "witnesses", be it people or items that are used as evidence/proof.

There's also no guarantee that you'll punish the right person if you're okay with eyewitness testimony or circumstantial evidence alone.

As above, God says "witnesses," not "eyewitnesses."

No, I don't think "God is okay" when a violent offender is released to commit further crimes and I've already admitted the current system has its flaws in that regard and things need changing where it comes to technicalities etc.

Then see question 2.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
======================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------​

The fact you missed is that states with the death penalty have higher murder rates. Why you would want higher murder rates is beyond me.

The fact YOU missed (which Stripe pointed out) is that the states with the death penalty hardly ever put people to death, and even when they do, it's so long after the trial that any deterrent effect has disappeared.

As you just learned, it matters a lot.

It matters a lot when you manipulate data to try to establish the opposite of reality.

In other words, you'd be willing to abridge the very appeals system that over a hundred innocent people used to stay alive long enough to prove their innocence. Again, I find that enthusiasm for taking innocent lives incomprehensible.

:deadhorse:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
======================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Not at all. I would incarcerate any murderer without the possibility of parole.

So then, why put them in a man-made prison, which can be broken out of?

Why not put them in a God-made prison, where there has never once been any escape?

Not true in any part, but like you to say it. Goof. And if that's your meat today I'm going vegetarian.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
======================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Didn't miss it and never said it was the first.

Not my point. My point was that God had forgiven adulterers/esses before without changing the law, which is what you claim happened with Jesus and the adulteress. He did not, therefore your position is invalid.

What I did say and note I stand behind and I suppose we'll just have to differ for the reasons set out prior and enough to make my part clear, whether or not anyone else finds merit, as some will and have and others not.

:e4e:

I don't agree to disagree. It's a bad thing to do when it comes to moral issues.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
======================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------​

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.

No exception was made anywhere in the law.

Capital crimes are worthy of death.

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.

Eider, if we compared your standard of justice to God's, how do you think yours would fare?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
======================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------​

What a rant....... for your idea of a righteous theocracy.
Unhinged ideas, all......

Straw man. And a common one at that.

I don't advocate theocracy. I'm a monarchist.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
======================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Gotcha........!
I thought you believed in a humane (quick and painless) death penalty?

Nope. No reward for the wicked.

You're beginning to leak your true mind, methinks?

Interesting.....

I'm surprised it took you this long to notice.

Gotcha.......!

There it is. :yawn:

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.

A very unhinged World.....

This coming from someone who thinks I advocate a theocracy and not a monarchy... :think:

Eider, see question 2 above in my post addressed to AB.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
======================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Short and clear.
Your showing the cracks in your theocracy now.

:think: :idunno:

You want to execute criminals painfully,

Only if they've committed a capital crime.

execute the mentally disabled........

Only if they've committed a capital crime.

why, next you could be calling for killing the physically disabled.....?

Nope.

Where is your idea of a Christian World heading?

Definitely not where you think it is.

.......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?

So go answer question 1 and 2 from above. Should be easy, right?

This all looks very unhinged to me, and probably looks that way to many Christians as well.

Not surprising, considering that those who live in the dark hate the light.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
======================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Your example fails. Murder is the premeditated killing of another person with malice aforethought

Is that the common law definition? :think:

God defines murder as the killing of the innocent.

None of that extra stuff...

Do you think man's definition of murder is better than God's?

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.

So you think "common" law trumps God's law, then?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
======================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Oh wow, have you even read the book?!

I have.

Seeing as Jesus never called for the death of anyone, that's both logically and factually wrong.

So then you deny that Jesus is God? Because, being God, He commanded that those guilty of capital crimes should be put to death.

Or have you forgotten what was said in the Old Testament?

Odd, then, that His one interaction with the issue during his ministry on Earth, he prevented the death penalty from being imposed. We're just going to have to ignore your modern revision and stick with the Bible.

Well, since it wasn't the first time in the Bible that GOD had pardoned an adulterer/ess without requiring the death penalty, and yet did not repeal the death penatly, I think it's safe to say that this time was no different.

As you should have figured out by now, killing people is a poor way to prevent killing people.

Putting murderers to death prevents them from committing more murders, and deters other would-be murderers from murdering.

Letting murderers go allows those murderers to then kill more innocent people.

But you seem to ignore that fact of reality.

Barb, I need you to, or at at least, recognize that a system that tends to acquit murderers is a system that thereby leads to the killing of the innocent. Can you at least do that?

Someone else here said that it was profaning the law to let a guilty person free.

Not the law. God.

And not me, but God Himself said that. The fact that you forgot that so easily tells me you don't really care for scripture.

That person was a death penalty advocate. How do you figure that Jesus was profaning the law?

:think:

(Barbarian notes that Jesus released the woman)
Jesus never detained her.

You think one has to be the one who detains a person in order to release them?

Think about it for a while; it might come to you.

:think: :idunno:

 

[Stripe]

God had forgiven adulterers/esses before without changing the law, which is what you claim happened with Jesus and the adulteress. He did not, therefore your position is invalid.

This is an excellent point, one that has gone uncontested. God put aside the death penalty for King David, but the law was not overturned.

Jesus — according to those with a superficial understanding of the story — put aside the death penalty for the woman caught in adultery and they use this to say the law can be overturned.

It's a wildly inconsistent idea, not to mention that the means to get into position to voice it is utterly voided by simply reading scripture (no exegesis necessary).

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

You have to admire the gall of the far-left liberals. On one hand, they are against the 'death penalty' and on the other, they are for 'abortion.' They appear to be a little confused. :dizzy:

 

[Stripe]

You have to admire the gall of the far-left liberals. On one hand, they are against the 'death penalty' and on the other, they are for 'abortion.' They appear to be a little confused. :dizzy:

To be fair, TH and Barbarian express pretty staunch pro-life positions.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

To be fair, TH and Barbarian express pretty staunch pro-life positions.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

They might just be the exception and not the rule.

 

[JudgeRightly]

[MENTION=10403]Arthur Brain[/MENTION] [MENTION=17915]eider[/MENTION] [MENTION=92]The Barbarian[/MENTION] [MENTION=7640]Town Heretic[/MENTION]

In 2016, the number of people killed by murder and non-negligent manslaughter was around 17,250 (that we know of).

If my system could bring that number down from 17,250 to 172 per year, would you adopt it?

 

[Stripe]

They might just be the exception and not the rule.

Ha. Without a doubt.

It is unfortunate that our agreements on the No. 1 issue do not produce a positive result that offsets the negative we see in secondary issues.

However, in saying that, the death penalty debate and abortion are closely linked in terms of framing a worldview, as your post indicated.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

[MENTION=10403]Arthur Brain[/MENTION] [MENTION=17915]eider[/MENTION] [MENTION=92]The Barbarian[/MENTION] [MENTION=7640]Town Heretic[/MENTION]

In 2016, the number of people killed by murder and non-negligent manslaughter was around 17,250 (that we know of).

If my system could bring that number down from 17,250 to 172 per year, would you adopt it?

This is another great post. The murder epidemic should be utterly unacceptable. However, changes to the justice system — apart from cosmetic ideas — are rejected.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

I think one of the important things to note with my system is that even with a perfect system (which God gave to us), it is flawed because of the fact that imperfect man is inherently part of that perfect system. That doesn't make the system evil or imperfect, it just means that there will be errors even in such a system because corrupted man is involved.

In other words, a perfect system which involves man will still have innocent people being caught up in it, though not because of the system, but because of man.

So, in that case, the best thing to do is to recognize that man will unintentionally cause problems, and therefore establish the minimizing of those problems as the end goal of the system, realizing that a 0% crime rate is impossible for even a perfect system that involves corrupt man, which means that the next best thing, which IS possible, is to minimize the risk of corruption on the part of those judging, and deterring crime so that criminals won't want to commit crime, both of which will, in fact, minimize the effect of corrupted man on the system.

Because of this, crime will drop to almost nonexistent, as the system becomes inherently more stable as time goes on, as the feedback loop of a just system further establishes itself as just, whereas a wicked system's feedback loop will only cause it to continue to become more and more wicked. Therefore, the goal of any good system should be to put the use if itself out of necessity, recognizing that such is not possible because of man's corrupt nature, just as attaining righteousness is not possible for corrupt man, yet man still is required to strive for it.

Recognizing that a system that inherently promotes and allows for criminals to go unpunished, and thereby harms the innocent in the process, is wicked and therefore not worthy to be used is the first step in replacing it with a righteous system, just as the first step in solving a problem is recognizing that one has a problem.

If a person under such a wicked system cannot admit that the system is problematic, even wicked, and argues in defence of such a system, then that person is not only dishonest to those whom he defends it to, but to himself, and will never see the reasoning behind why his system is wicked, no matter how clear his opponent makes his points.

So, [MENTION=10403]Arthur Brain[/MENTION] [MENTION=17915]eider[/MENTION] [MENTION=92]The Barbarian[/MENTION] [MENTION=7640]Town Heretic[/MENTION], and anyone else who opposes the system put forth by myself and others here and in the Bible, I need you to, or at least I am hoping you will, acknowledge that a system that tends to acquit murderers is a system that thereby leads to the killing of the innocent.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Arthur, if we compare your standard of "absolute proof" with God's standard of "two or three witnesses," who's standard do you think its better? Yours or God's?

You're very keen on asking questions but not so much on answering them. Does God abhor the shedding of innocent blood?

Question 1: Arthur, and anyone else who reads this, if you were shown a convincing argument that my system would decrease the number of innocent people killed every year, would you adopt it as your position?

If you or anyone could make a convincing argument as to a system that would reduce the amout of innocent people being killed then I'd listen. It would have to be a lot different to what you've been proffering so far though.

Question 2: I need you to, or at least I am hoping you will, acknowledge that a system that tends to acquit murderers is a system that thereby leads to the killing of the innocent. Can you do that?

Considering that I've already acknowledged that the current system isn't perfect you should already have been able to draw an answer to this. However, the current system doesn't tend to acquit murderers as a matter of course.

That's what it seems like you were saying. But I'll try not to put words in your mouth.

No, I don't claim that you intentionally want innocent people killed but that you support a system where such would inevitably happen and also where such numbers would increase given how you'd deny any subsequent appeal process. It was pretty clear.

See my two questions above.

So then it should be easy to answer the questions above.

Ya, answered.

"Live in the OT?"

Arthur, has God's standard of justice changed?

Do you seriously think that commandments made in ancient times to tribes are meant to be taken literal verbatim now? There was no such thing as forensic evidence in those days or anything akin to techniques available today. Pretty much the only way guilt could be ascertained would be through eyewitness testimony corroborated, else what would you expect the bible to specify for people of the time? How DNA evidence would come into being? They wouldn't have had a clue what that meant back then.

Again, Arthur, I ask: if we compare your standard of "absolute proof" with God's standard of "two or three witnesses," who's standard do you think its better? Yours or God's?

Do you think God would be happy with shedding innocent blood when it can be prevented or would He abhor it? Under the system you would have in place there'd be no appeals process that has exonerated plenty of people in the past as Barb explained to you. You don't "improve" a system by simply speeding up a conviction and execution process and being satisfied of a person's guilt without irrefutable evidence.

See question 1 above.

Your questions have been answered.

1) as far as I can remember, I've never seen SR.
2) There wouldn't be a death row in my system, because punishments would be carried out within 24 hours of conviction.

And the miscarriages of justice would skyrocket because of it along with the innocent death toll. Yay...

See the two questions above.

Continually referring to questions that have been addressed is not an answer. I'm just going to omit your ongoing "responses" on that score.

Of course it does.

Criminals would be deterred from pointing at an innocent person when put on trial, further decreasing the number of innocent people put on trial.

If you think perjury is the biggest cause of miscarriages of justice then you need a reality check. Is it serious? Sure, but it wouldn't impact anything like you seem to think.

Again, compare your standards with God's. Which is better?

If God abhors the shedding of innocent blood then your system would perpetuate it. You deny an appeals process and are okay with people being convicted and executed without absolute proof which is a lot easier to ascertain with current procedures than it was back in the OT. You should ask yourself the very same question.

I do not nor have I ever said "eyewitnesses." I even pointed out to GO that "eyewitnesses" is not the standard God uses. Just "witnesses", be it people or items that are used as evidence/proof.

Fine, but that's pretty much what it would have been back then.

As above, God says "witnesses," not "eyewitnesses."

Seems pretty obvious it was referring to people.

Is that the common law definition? :think:

God defines murder as the killing of the innocent.

None of that extra stuff...

That's ironic considering it's exactly what you'd be doing if you execute people who aren't mentally capable of understanding their actions. Do you think children should be tried, convicted and executed as well?

Murder is the calculated and premeditated act of killing another person, "innocent" or otherwise.

Do you think man's definition of murder is better than God's?

No, but then you don't seem to have a handle on the subject anyway. I highly doubt that God would see the actions of someone with mental illness or retardation as being a "murderer" if they killed someone. Lennie isn't a murderer in "Of Mice And Men" but a grown man with the mind of a child who doesn't know his own strength, a peaceable guy who didn't mean to kill the woman and George kills him at the end to spare him from a brutal lynching, not because he deserved to be "executed".

So you think "common" law trumps God's law, then?

No, I think common sense ties in with it and you're not showing much. If you seriously think that people like Lennie should be regarded the same as those fully aware and calculating in their actions and are one and the same then you have a serious disconnect.

I have.

You may have read the words but you sure didn't get the gist...

:rain:

 

[Town Heretic]

I think one of the important things to note with my system is that even with a perfect system (which God gave to us), it is flawed because of the fact that imperfect man is inherently part of that perfect system. That doesn't make the system evil or imperfect, it just means that there will be errors even in such a system because corrupted man is involved.

If man is a part of that system, with that understanding, it absolutely makes the system imperfect.

That said, it's not about being perfect. No one is arguing for or against any system using that criterion.

Relying on witnesses when forensic evidence is available would be inviting a greater degree of injustice and imperfection because we know witnesses are frequently unreliable. And recognizing that any system is open to error, eliminating the appeal and presumptions of our legal system would invite foreseeable additional miscarriages of justice without recourse.

If a person under such a wicked system cannot admit that the system is problematic, even wicked, and argues in defence of such a system, then that person is not only dishonest to those whom he defends it to, but to himself

Saying people are dishonest for disagreeing with you, which is what that reduces to, is a bad idea. Heck, Barbarian inferred something much less certain and more arguable and got tossed for it. You might want to reconsider that one.

So, @Arthur Brain @eider @The Barbarian @Town Heretic, and anyone else who opposes the system put forth by myself and others here and in the Bible,

Rather, I've said that for its day you couldn't really do much better. But we can expect more now. I don't fault God for not demanding what men were incapable of providing, but we can do more today. In the same spirit I don't condemn medical practioners of the day for failing to prescribe a course of antibiotics to help fight off an infection. But if a doctor practicing today didn't I'd say it was reasonable to investigate whether or not he should be licensed.

I need you to, or at least I am hoping you will, acknowledge that a system that tends to acquit murderers is a system that thereby leads to the killing of the innocent.

The system we have in place doesn't tend to acquit murderers. As with any system that's going to happen, but it's the exception to the rule, not the rule or tendency. The rule with our system is that it tends to convict well over 90% of people charged with any crime and it comes with protections for the innocent wrongfully convicted.

That's a good thing.