ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
And my great great grandfather and many others' ancestors fought to set every one of them free.
You're welcome
The Death Penalty should be applied equally to all ages
- Thread starter JudgeRightly
- Start date
You're welcome
What should be done regarding the OP? A NINE YEAR OLD RAPED A FIVE YEAR OLD.
Doing anything other than putting him to death would be to tolerate rape.
Being mentally impaired or incapable of understanding what they're doing should be an aggravating factor with such crimes, not a mitigating factor.
You appeal to science, yet seem to forget that science does not tell us "ought," only "is."
God says you shall not pity the criminal. Life shall be for life.
A criminal is one who has committed a crime.
Rape is a crime, one punishable by death, at least in a civilized society, and had been since Noah.
We ought to punish criminals appropriately. Just because you don't like the punishment doesn't mean it's wrong.
When we put criminals guilty of capital crimes to death, society is better off.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
1781-1881
16% of that time period was entirely slave free.
For most or all of that time period, northern states were entirely slave free.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
I'm not 'appealing to science', I'm using it as the yardstick that any sane system has (and does) when it comes to apportioning culpability for a crime, your bizarre objections to that notwithstanding. You actually believe that an incapacity to understand one's actions should be an aggravating factor in ascertaining guilt for a crime?! So...a fully aware adult who deliberately and with malice aforethought commits first degree murder has done nothing worse than one who kills without fully realizing what they've done effectively?!!
There's a reason why the kind of lunacy you propose isn't accepted in both our respective countries and never will be. It fails on a scientific and just as importantly, a moral level.
Last edited:
AGAIN, science tells us what is, not ought.
Science cannot tell you right and wrong. We're discussing what is right and wrong.
It's like using a tape-measure to know what color the sky is.
Yes. Have you noticed how many criminals use "mental illness" as a means of mitigating their punishments when otherwise their case would be open and shut?
That's not a coincidence.
Both have committed murder. Both are deserving death.
Man is not authorized, nor has the capability, to try to calculate the correct amount of punishment. God is and does.
I don't care what you think, Arthur.
Man is evil. God is just.
God said put the murderer, the rapist, the adulterer and the adulteress, to death.
Who are you to say we should do otherwise?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Science is utilized in determining our respective laws and where it comes to right and wrong, the reasons why we don't hold children and the mentally impaired to the same level of accountability as a fully aware adult are more than readily apparent, if not blindingly obvious. Do you need a tape measure to determine that a five year old hasn't fully developed physically? Of course not so do the math where it comes to mental development by the same token. Then see why any even semi civilized country has laws that take this into account, like ours.
You argue that such should be an aggravating factor, that impairment itself, be it mental illness or in the context of the OP, underdevelopment actually go against people in a court of law. Do you realize how insane that actually is? That a person's age/lack of cognisant ability be used against them?!
Murder requires premeditated intent so someone incapable of that has not, by definition, committed murder. Ergo, they can't (and rightfully aren't) be held to the same standard as someone who has actually committed it.
What you propose not only flies in the face of common sense and science it's morally repugnant. Don't pretend that there's anything Godly about applying the death penalty to kids cos there isn't.
AGAIN, science DOES NOT determine "ought," it can only tell us what "is."
And you didn't answer my question.
What should be done about the NINE YEAR OLD WHO RAPED A FIVE YEAR OLD?!
Anything other than the death penalty for him is tolerance of rape.
Are you going to tolerate rape?
Oh it's obvious alright, Arthur.
The reason we don't is because people like you are offended by justice, and those who are in power who hate God take advantage of this fact so that they can destroy what God-fearing men have built so that they can rule over the ashes.
For 3500 years we put murderers to death. The result was a society that was MOSTLY stable.
Yet, now we are offended by the mere notion of justice being served, and what has that resulted in? Crime rates through the roof, murders, rapes, the killing of innocent children in the womb, drug use, and anyone who brings ANY of these things up in front of a leftist might lose his job for hate speech or racism.
Tell that to the five year old who was RAPED BY A NINE-YEAR OLD.
If a nine-year old is RAPING FIVE YEAR OLDS, HE IS NOT FIT FOR SOCIETY.
Allowing him to live will only harm the rest of society.
And notice how your "measure of mental development" still has not made any difference?
Civilized?
You call a NINE YEAR OLD RAPING A FIVE YEAR OLD CIVILIZED?!
You're seriously messed up in the head, Arthur, if you think a nine-year old RAPING A FIVE YEAR OLD is just a normal part of "civilized society."
If a person does not understand that killing someone is wrong, what makes you think they can be a rational part of this so-called "civilized society" you keep appealing to?
I tell you they cannot be.
Anyone who does not understand that killing another human being is UNFIT for society, and should be put to death, because they are a danger to that society.
Your own "law" defeats you.
"Second-degree murder" is not premeditated.
It's still murder.
God said for murderers to be put to death.
That includes anyone who intentionally takes an action that results in the life of an innocent person being extinguished, premeditated or not.
Don't try to claim the moral high ground when you can't even establish a justification for the existence of morality to begin with.
God said "Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man."
Who are you to demand otherwise?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Yes, and the rest has been explained as to why sensible laws take age, mental faculty etc into account such as the laws we have. It's why we don't have twisted ones of the like you propose here by way of.
Regarding your twitter/x post in OP. I've tried searching for this case with no luck but I'll answer in principle to it anyway. What should happen is what I saw happening in the vid, it's rare in the extreme for children this young to be charged with such a crime and in the video but your insistence that failure to demand anything other than the DP for a nine year old child equates to a tolerance for rape can just be dismissed for the faux emotive hyperbole that it is JR.
Well no, the reason we don't have laws such as the ones you would have enacted is because it would fly in the face of science, common sense and morality as explained. Nice rant though.
Are you going to actually address points being made or go on rants that can just be dismissed? It isn't "my measure" of mental development don't forget, it's proven in science. You should try a neuroscience course, it's fascinating stuff and you can perhaps educate yourself in the process.
And once again, a hyperbolic rant with no addressing of actual points. Laws don't come about through some sort of popularity contest or through a 'hatred of God' or some other rubbish JR. This is why your "ideals" on the score would never come which is kind of ironic...
Ah, it wasn't that long ago that people with severe mental illnesses like schizophrenia were killed until there was better understanding of such conditions. In some cases there'll be people who could never live a "normal" life in society unfortunately. Your solution is to just put them to death because they could be a danger? Where does that road end? Nowhere good...
I was referring to first degree true and in cases of murder, intent is significant even in 'lower gradients'. Your last is a bit intriguing as that could count towards nearly anything. You decide to get in your truck one morning knowing full well there's a risk in such an action and as a result, an innocent pedestrian is killed when one of your tyres blows out and you lose control. You ready to face the DP for that life being extinguished?
I don't need to try thanks and I'm not 'demanding' anything anyway...