commonsense
Active member
So what you're saying is that if the murderer of Renee Good had faced consequences there's a good chance that the murderers of Alex Pretti would not have been emboldened to commit murder?
The Death Penalty should be applied equally to all ages
- Thread starter JudgeRightly
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
Red herrings will get you nowhere.
That was a terrible joke. I don't recommend becoming a comedian.
Now answer my question:
... I could continue this analogy, but maybe you can see where I'm going with this.
So again, I ask, if we allow one person to get away with a crime, what does it teach him and other (would-be) criminals?
What does it do to the foundations of civilized society?
When consequences for actions are removed, how does it affect those around criminals?
In gang-infested areas where enforcement of the law is more of a suggestion than a requirement, is it more or less common for there to be corruption of the people not in gangs? Do the regular folk tend to obey the gangs more than the law of the land?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
I'm not sure they're pretending.
Most of them are pretty darned retarded
And to further illustrate my point:
| YOU’RE NOT GONNA BELIEVE THIS ONE OUT OF ALAMEDA… OF COURSE THE JUDGE DID THIS California strikes again. An Alameda County judge just ruled that Cedric Irving Jr. the man who admitted to the targeted shooting murder of legendary East Bay football coach John Beam (featured in the Netflix documentary Last Chance U) inside his office at Laney College last November is mentally incompetent to stand trial. After four psych evals, the judge says he needs mental health treatment instead of facing a jury for murder. Coach Beam is gone. The killer confessed. And California’s justice system just hits pause. |
VladtheDestroyer
Active member
What happens is gangsters will get kids to murder and traffic drugs for them instead. It's easy for them to target kids these days. Why do you think so many juveniles in Chicago are walking around with machine guns now? It's WAY harder to buy a gun on the streets now than it was 30 years ago. But they are everywhere now. The reason for this is that the gangsters who are selling guns on black market now are only supplying them now to the people they know are going to be killing the people they want to have killed. Street gang members (kids) who are protecting a "territory" where the is a stash house that's involved with a certain cartel. Things like that.
Many years ago, one of my family members was caught in one of the largest methamphetamine busts in the entire US. The street value of the drugs he got caught with is back then, is almost nothing when compared to what many juveniles get caught dealing and trafficking today. Because it not hard these days, to take a kid and convince him that his entire life is worthless and that the only chance he has is to work for a mafia or drug cartel. It's easy to do that. And it's easy to find parents who will let their kids get involved with things like that because they get money and they know their child isn't going to be punished for it. Maybe a few years in juvenile detention and that's it. But by then, their lives are destroyed. And they die the on the streets while the gangsters that recruited them, die of old age. The only people I grew up with that made it out of this lifestyle became born again Christians. Jesus was the only person that could save them. The rest are dead or serving life in prison. That is reality.
So I was lucky that when I was young, someone who hardly even knew me, took the time to tell me something about God's Word. Even though I was just young punk who was just speaking foolishness at the time. I will never forget that. It is an amazing thing that I did not deserve.
@JudgeRightly comments are spot on. He knows exactly what he is talking about. You don't have to grow up with criminal gangs to know how the world works. The world works the way God says it will in the Bible. It is ridiculous for you to try to deny this.
Not to diminish your point at all, but this is something I wasn't even considering!
My main point is that it, to answer the question I've been harrying Arthur with for the last several pages of this thread, teaches men that they can get away with things normally deemed wrong/immoral/illegal, leading to the collapse of society as a whole.
This process does not happen immediately, but can take decades.
We already see evidence of it in multiple countries, particularly Britain, where rape gangs run rampant and murders by knife are a common occurrence (and that's not even getting into WHO is committing these crimes).
But yes, when letal consequences are not enforced equally for everyone, it incentivizes the ones who would normally commit the crimes to use the ones who are perceptively exempt from the consequences to commit heinous acts, because then the masterminds behind the crime can more effectively get away with their evildoing, and even if the one they used gets caught, they're not likely to be punished, and this furthers the disease of corruption.
VladtheDestroyer
Active member
My point is secondary to the point you have been making! I see that the Bible has given you an excellent understanding of the matter. Thank you for having the guts to talk about it!
commonsense
Active member
Thank you for your thoughtful post. You have many worthwhile points.
Now, why do you suppose that it's easy for gangsters to target kids, these days or any days? Sure there's societal factors, broken families, being the victim of bullying, looking for a "family", security, comradeship. But the main, overriding reason is they're kids. Why don't kids have the right to vote, the right to drink or have sexual relations? Because they're kids. The pre-frontal cortex of their brains (responsible for decision making and rational thinking) won't be fully developed until their early 20s. And yet JR thinks they are really adults in a 40 lb body, and should be punished as adults for "crimes." How do others on here feel about this? It seems JR has gone far beyond what even the most rabid Christian Nationalist on here would support. Perhaps there is an ISIS Caliphate somewhere that would hold to similar views.
Bingo!
Because, and this is the issue you people keep dancing around because you don't want to admit where it leads, crime multiplies when the law is treated as selective or negotiable.
Criminals thrive where punishment is weak, selective, or negotiable.
Most of those are not root causes so much as overlapping symptoms of social decay, especially family breakdown. But whether the vulnerability comes from broken homes, insecurity, or peer pressure, the point remains the same: criminals exploit the vulnerable most aggressively where the risks to themselves are lowest.
And those lower risks are inherent in a system that does not apply the law and its punishments equally to all members of society.
Yes, in the sense that they are more impressionable, more vulnerable, and easier to manipulate. But that only reinforces my point, because when the law is not applied equally, those same children become useful instruments for criminals who want to lower their own risk.
That is a category error, and a pretty obvious one at that. Restrictions on lawful privileges like voting, drinking, and sexual consent are not the same thing as punishment for unlawful acts, so the comparison fails. You are still avoiding the actual issue of what selective impunity teaches society.
That's a straw man. I do not think children are “adults in a 40 lb body.” My point is that unequal application of the law teaches the wrong lessons, weakens deterrence, and creates incentives for criminals to exploit the young, the weak, and the vulnerable.
This is just an appeal to popularity for the benefit of the peanut gallery, not an actual argument. Truth is not determined by how many people in this forum are willing to affirm it, especially when most of them still refuse to answer the basic question I've been asking.
Pure smear-by-association. Comparing my position to ISIS does not answer the question. Dragging in ISIS is what people do when they cannot answer a Christian's arguments. Either defend your own position, or refute mine. Or just keep proving my point that you cannot.
VladtheDestroyer
Active member
Because we try to be "nicer than God." Instead of obeying Him we are soft on crime.
We cannot quantify all of the various risk factors involved that lead people to crime. Or even the effects a single crime has on society as whole. But God can! This why we should obey Him. Do you think that there is anyone who serving life in prison right now who honestly thinks "Oh, if only my parents would have let me get away with stealing! Then maybe I wouldn't be in prison for murder right now!" Of course not, that would be ridiculous! JudgeRightly knows exactly what he is talking about here. I have seen it with my own eyes.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
No, I answered your question directly regarding "should a person be allowed to get away with a crime", not whether criminals should be allowed to get away with them. You've had it fully - several times. No, they should not - provided they're old enough and possess sufficient mental acuity to be charged and held accountable for a crime in the first place. How is that not answering your question?
The premise of your thread contends that the death penalty should be applied to all ages. That is as nonsensical as it is sickening. So, if society were to apply this, then new born babies could be executed, right? It must be if it's to be applied to all ages (which is obviously post birth)
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well yeah, neither of us are radical right wingers, Trump apologists, conspiracy cranks or advocates for executing kids so yup, we're just a pair of loonies!
That has not been my question for the last several pages, Arthur.
At this point, it really does seem that you either are not reading what I write, or are deliberately substituting an easier question because you cannot answer the one actually asked.
I am not asking:
“Should a person be allowed to get away with a crime?”
I am asking:
If we allow one person to get away with a crime, what does it teach him and other (would-be) criminals?
Those are two different questions.
One asks what should happen.
The other asks what such leniency teaches.
You keep answering the first because you do not want to answer the second.
Because that still answers what should be allowed, not what it teaches when it is allowed.
Good grief, man, learn the difference.
Dragging this out to newborn babies is just another attempt to avoid the actual issue. A reductio is not a substitute for reading comprehension.
For the past several pages, my question has been the same, and you still have not answered it.
So I will ask it again, and perhaps this time you will read it slowly enough to notice what words are actually there:
If we allow one person to get away with a crime, what does it teach him and other (would-be) criminals?
NOW ANSWER MY QUESTION! Not the question you want me to have asked.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Heck, there's nothing to avoid! I've said multiple times that a person (with the caveat of being old enough to be held accountable for a crime) should not be allowed to get away with it. Why do you suppose I'm saying that? Gordon Bennet, obviously it would set a bad precedent, that shouldn't even need to be added if you can do some basic math so are you gonna quit beating this drum now?
Given the premise of your thread, then bringing newborn babies into it is entirely salient. It applies to all ages, right?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
So, JR's contention that the death penalty should be applied to all ages would solve any of that how? Do you think that the DP should be applied to five year old's and younger?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
"JudgeRightly" advocates that children, or indeed, any person post birth (unless he wants to add a bizarre caveat here) can be executed for a "capitol crime". So, that includes children as young as five, younger even, to face the "electric chair" so to speak. Does that sit right with you? Is it being "nicer than God" to be in complete opposition to that?
So after several pages of pretending not to understand English, you finally answered the question:
Finally! After several pages of dodging, you admit the point.
If allowing someone to get away with a crime sets a bad precedent, then it teaches the criminal and everyone watching the wrong lesson. That is precisely why I spent several pages asking you:
If we allow one person to get away with a crime, what does it teach him and other (would-be) criminals?
Only now, after all that evasion, do you finally admit the principle.
Which means the real issue now is whether you are willing to apply that principle consistently, or whether you intend to abandon it the moment the offender belongs to a class you want to exempt.
Though, judging by your next couple of posts, I doubt you even understood what you had just conceded:
And there it is. The moment you finally admit my point, you immediately run straight back to the same emotional dodge.
You already conceded that letting people get away with crime sets a bad precedent. So stop pretending the issue is still up for debate.
The question now is simple: if letting the guilty escape punishment sets a bad precedent, why would carving out entire categories of people to escape it not do the same?
And here you go again, trying to hide behind emotional imagery because you cannot deal with the principle you just conceded.
Whether the method is the electric chair, hanging, firing squad, or some other means is secondary. The underlying point is that murderers should be executed for their crimes.
Yes, Arthur, I am fully aware that this is an extreme case. That is why it tests the point.
I raised a hard hypothetical, and instead of grappling with the principle it was meant to expose, you did what you always do: you fixated on the shock value and started emoting.
But edge cases do not refute principles. Every legal system has hard cases and tradeoffs at the margins.
And as Clete already pointed out, in a genuinely just society, where the death penalty is actually applied properly, cases where a five year old would even be tried for murder would be practically nonexistent anyway.
So all this talk of ‘the electric chair’ is not an argument. It just shows, again, that you would rather provoke disgust than deal with the principle you already admitted: letting the guilty escape punishment sets a bad precedent.
And this is not even some pure fantasy. We have already seen a case in recent years where a six year old shot his teacher and then bragged about it afterward, thinking he had killed her. So no, the hard case is not imaginary just because it makes you uncomfortable.
You already conceded the point: letting the guilty escape punishment sets a bad precedent.
Now either apply that principle consistently, or admit that you abandon it the moment emotion overrides reason.
Finally! After several pages of dodging, you admit the point.
If allowing someone to get away with a crime sets a bad precedent, then it teaches the criminal and everyone watching the wrong lesson. That is precisely why I spent several pages asking you:
If we allow one person to get away with a crime, what does it teach him and other (would-be) criminals?
Only now, after all that evasion, do you finally admit the principle.
Which means the real issue now is whether you are willing to apply that principle consistently, or whether you intend to abandon it the moment the offender belongs to a class you want to exempt.
Though, judging by your next couple of posts, I doubt you even understood what you had just conceded:
And there it is. The moment you finally admit my point, you immediately run straight back to the same emotional dodge.
You already conceded that letting people get away with crime sets a bad precedent. So stop pretending the issue is still up for debate.
The question now is simple: if letting the guilty escape punishment sets a bad precedent, why would carving out entire categories of people to escape it not do the same?
And here you go again, trying to hide behind emotional imagery because you cannot deal with the principle you just conceded.
Whether the method is the electric chair, hanging, firing squad, or some other means is secondary. The underlying point is that murderers should be executed for their crimes.
Yes, Arthur, I am fully aware that this is an extreme case. That is why it tests the point.
I raised a hard hypothetical, and instead of grappling with the principle it was meant to expose, you did what you always do: you fixated on the shock value and started emoting.
But edge cases do not refute principles. Every legal system has hard cases and tradeoffs at the margins.
And as Clete already pointed out, in a genuinely just society, where the death penalty is actually applied properly, cases where a five year old would even be tried for murder would be practically nonexistent anyway.
So all this talk of ‘the electric chair’ is not an argument. It just shows, again, that you would rather provoke disgust than deal with the principle you already admitted: letting the guilty escape punishment sets a bad precedent.
And this is not even some pure fantasy. We have already seen a case in recent years where a six year old shot his teacher and then bragged about it afterward, thinking he had killed her. So no, the hard case is not imaginary just because it makes you uncomfortable.
You already conceded the point: letting the guilty escape punishment sets a bad precedent.
Now either apply that principle consistently, or admit that you abandon it the moment emotion overrides reason.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
There was no evasion, I answered you from the get go, that a person with sufficient development should not be allowed to get away with a crime. The rest should follow as obvious, unless you need things spoon fed and on a silver platter? Heck, I'll do that in future if ya want - join the dots so to speak?
There's a whole lot of rambling word salad following but my position remains constant, and yes, it's in complete opposition to yours. I maintain that only people of sufficient development can be held accountable for a crime, let alone be executed for one. That's what current law dictates so is that based solely on emotive argument? Well, no, it isn't, far from it and you'd hardly need to be a professor of neuroscience to figure this out.
I highly doubt that even you, advocating for what you do here, would seriously argue that a newborn baby could be held accountable for a capitol crime. (Heck though, given the premise of your thread though perhaps you do?) Given how utterly insane and indefensible such a position actually is, then it shouldn't take any sort of leap of imagination to wonder why we don't execute five year old kids. It's not purely emotive (though yes, such an execrable position provokes strong emotive reactions, for those of us that can feel them at any rate) You point to a a singular case as if that could anywhere be the norm or if it supports your position. Tragic, for sure but your answer is to execute the kid? Who probably didn't understand fully what they'd done and the ramifications of it by any stretch?
What you advocate is sickening, illogical and indefensible on every level, not just emotive. Tell me, have you ever been moved by anything, reduced to tears? You obviously don't have to answer that, I'm just curious. FTR. I hope you have been. It would show some humanity.