No Death Penalty. What Is Your Position?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
- Status
So you respond to everything but the most important thing I said.
Good show! Welcome to my permanent ignore list.
I, for one, am not offended by anything anyone has said to me.
Nothing you just wrote is actually my position.
That's not what I did.
Right. If you understand what I wrote you should understand the point of it was to rebut the presumption you made above.
He was God incarnate. You think anyone needed to teach him anything? I don't. Most of the rest of us, from physicians to masons, do a lot better when we're taught.
You actually do get that in public education. I know because I'm also a certified teacher with a masters in Early Childhood Ed. who has worked in the system.
No, I don't. Most Americans claim and claimed Christianity. So did most Germans. Do the math.
Present anything you find relevant.
I didn't even open with them, so no.
Well, no. The propaganda included and was rooted in blaming the Jews. It was like popcorn for a lot of Europeans. Christian sentiment in relation to them has been, historically speaking, less than kind. You want examples? It's an easy case to support.
I'm sure. And most prisoners will tell you they were innocent of the crime they were convicted for, believe what you will.
Weak, revisionist history. Go to the Holocaust Museum and do better.
He was, in fact, hugely popular among the people. Take a gander at the newsreels sometime.
In the same sense most Christians in this country either supported or permitted slavery for a very long time and racist policy thereafter. It's not their faith that was at fault, but their practice.
Yes.
How about you take into account the numbers that challenge your emotion-based argument. :up:
Again, if you don't want it considered, don't write it to me.
I assume the part you're speaking to above was the shouting part, which I briefly mentioned, but otherwise ignored, because it was a rules violating, enormously fonted bit that I wasn't interested in shrinking to respond to. If you had wanted it considered and singularly, all you had to do was put it singularly and in regular font. I'd have obliged.
I didn't engage you on the point, but responded to your efforts, so all you had to do was stop talking to me and I'd have forgotten you were there.
And because I don't want it lost in one of the many rabbit holes littering the thread, Jacob asked a fairly straight forward question about our stand on the death penalty.
I answered: I'm against it because we know that we've executed the innocent. We have the capacity to incarcerate people for life. During that incarceration some of those innocent may be freed and some remedy applied. But once we take a man's life we cannot offer any remedy and cannot in any sense undo the injustice.
Someone added a consideration regarding damage done by those paroled, which I thought was a good point and my answer was that we should not, for any reason, parole someone who committed a murder.
And that's where it stands with me.
Coward.
Your proposal will never be implemented.
Bars don't stop murderers.
And this is only part of the challenge you face.
So as far as recaps to banned people go, it needs some work.
And that's where it stands.
In a thread about the death penalty which is a legitimate debate, you manage to attack Christians as slave owners and bring up the Left's favorite Nazi boogyman. What is wrong with you.
Can't you ever stay on topic?
Speaking of the topic:
The founding fathers and the authors of the constitution did not consider the death penalty to be cruel and unusual punishment, so that's that. No more discussion is necessary.
You say the death penalty is an issue that can be legitimately debated and then go on to state this:
TrumoTrainCA said:
There is ALWAYS a necessary discussion when it comes to the criminal justice system and protecting the rights and lives of the innocent.
Aren't you in favor of the DP?
Why do you keep thanking TH's posts? You do realize he has a poor argument against it — one based on his shoddy theology? Aren't you an atheist as well?
:idunno:
That's hysterical (either). I omitted your off topic bit.
That's not how debates work. :nono:
But is the debate about what the FFs thought? I mean, if that settled issues we could still own people. No, that's not the gold standard.
Meanwhile, at least at this point and with me, it isn't about whether or not the DP is cruel and unusual. It's about preventing the deaths of the wrongly convicted, keeping the state's hands clean of innocent blood.
You'd think people on our side about abortion would be as invested in keeping us out of the accidental murder business. I know you and I will probably disagree beyond my initial objection, but it's a hard objection to get past, I think.
:cheers:
While I fully support the DP, the discussion of error-free verdicts should be a mandatory in DP cases.
EXAMPLE: The Central Park Five. A horrendous verdict based on a shady investigation and malicious prosecution.
We should all be invested in making sure that innocent people are not convicted of a crime they did not commit. My follow up on that is that those who DO commit DP violations should meet their maker sooner rather than later. Like Old Yeller, they cannot be trusted to not re-offend as long as they are alive.
So, TH, what IS the gold standard?
How about God Himself and His word?
God said to put murderers to death to protect the innocent, and that it was just as wrong to let a guilty man go free as it is to kill an innocent man.
Your suggestions are biased, in that they try to protect the innocent more than they punish the guilty, which puts you in the wrong.
See? There you go again. Trying to protect the innocent more than you try to punish the guilty.
Those two things need to be BALANCED. Your suggestions do not achieve that balance.
"Error-free verdicts" are not common enough to be relied upon, due to man's fallen nature, so it puts an impossible task on the shoulders of the judges, and makes trials tedious and convictions nearly impossible to acquire, which harms the victim(s) of the crimes.
That's why God said "two or three witnesses shall establish a matter."
But you ignore the deaths of tens of thousands more.
Right Divider
Body part
That still leaves the problem of the reliability of the two or three witnesses.
Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable. I've seen illustrations of that in interviewing and deposing multiple witnesses to a singular event. It's like a game of telephone in the macro.
They were the best you could get before forensic evidence, which itself isn't perfect, but resting on that or excluding prosecution in the absence of that would be a worse idea given what we can do today. In fact, we've had cases without witnesses solved by forensics and murderers identified and convicted by that very thing.
- Status