Public beheadings in Saudi Arabia

[k]

I ask again is thereANYONE reading this thread who would willingly be the person to put to death a Condemmed person? If not why would you want another to do teh dirty work of the punishment that you advocate?

Can't speak for anyone on CF, but I know of some people who would not only do it, but use their vacation time to make the trip.

 

[CaDan]

Not much common sense on this thread, it's good to see some here.

Basically what it boils down to is:

Inappropriate application of Christian and Biblical sentiments to the law enforcement and justice system. If "forgiveness and mercy" are good, and "retribution and vengeance" are bad, it logically follows that we should never arrest, try, convict or punish a transgressor. We shouldn't even have laws, what's the point? Just turn our cheek and go our merry way.

Or,

Wrongly convicted people have later been found to be innocent. It is quite an upset that people have been found innocent and freed, and we should never have locked them up. Therefore, because that is bad, again we should scrap the whole system(following their logic to its natural conclusion).They lie on top of it and claim that innocents have been executed, in order to get emotions roiling.

Thank you for the False Dichotomy (I learned the capitalization trick from Paladin Vader. Props).

The third way is to not impose irreversible punishments via an inherently flawed system.

It's all very sophomoric, no actually kindergartenish. I wish we could have a real discussion on it, with some actual thought . But no one seems interested

"A real discussion"? Do you mean one where everyone agrees with your vicious interpretations? I guess so.

Read back to what triggered this latest explosion of posts. TownCrier asserted the hardcore utilitarian position that the killing of innocents is justified because it will deter the killing of innocents.

This position ignores a few centuries worth of devlopment in ethical and moral analysis. Kant, anybody? John Rawls? Have you even heard of the veil of ignorance method of analysis? The categorical imperative? Sounds like the answer is a big N-O.

Simply put, Paul's analysis of government is not applicable to self-governing representative democracies. It is suited to societies in which Christians are a persecuted minority. And I don't mean the kind of "persecution" that Americans whine about. I mean death and dismemberment in the Colisseum.

 

[seebs]

Well it is barbaric. And eye for an eye for a theft would be to let the victim take something of equal value from the thief, not the hand itself. In murder, a life is taken away from an innocent party and hence equal justice would necessitate the taking of the murderer's life.

[bible]Matthew 5:38-39[/bible]

No one with a cross icon should be arguing that "an eye for an eye" is any kind of justice.

We were specifically told that it was not justice.

Eye for eye is not justice.

If we want pre-Christian vengeance-based morality, we know where to find it. However, it is not justice.

 

[k]

That being said, perhaps the electric chair isn't the best method. Sounds like right out of The Green Mile.

Why isn't the electric chair the best method? Why does the method even matter, we are still killing them. A change in method is not for the victim, but for the perpetrators of the action.

If an action is so problematic that methods have to be drastically changed, then that is enough evidence to show the action shouldn't happen in the first place.

 

[seebs]

I ask again is thereANYONE reading this thread who would willingly be the person to put to death a Condemmed person? If not why would you want another to do teh dirty work of the punishment that you advocate?

Yes there is. TwinCrier has expressed what I think is probably best called "glee" at the notion of "enforcing God's vengeance". The argument is that, since Romans 13 says God institutes the state, the state's vengeance is God's vengeance. I am unable to understand why she didn't move to Iraq, where she could have carried out God's vengeance on Kurds and dissidents and felt all good about it. China's still got openings, though.

 

[santalucia]

No, santalucia. This is a misinterpretation of what people are saying here in this thread. I've yet to read any post that advocates abolishing all laws. The sticking point is on the use of the death penalty. No need to imply that opponents of the death penalty somehow advocate some sort of Christian anarchy. It isn't the case.

The point is that the arguments they are using invariably and logically lead to that. Of course they don't say that they advocate abolishing all laws. But to use Christian principles such as mercy and forgiveness (good) and calling justice retribution and vengeance (bad), as the reason for abolishing the death penalty IS in fact saying just that. That any punishment is bad.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

No, I don't think so, although his 2 cohorts were not given the same. They were all a bunch of gun-wielding crooks. If you are going by a film, "The Exonerated", it has some serious flaws. That being said, perhaps the electric chair isn't the best method. Sounds like right out of The Green Mile.

I'm not going off of a film (was there even a film?), I'm going off of the case.

[font=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Jesse J. Tafero (Florida)
Case Chart

Placing him as the shooter is inconsistent with the evidence. Just because they are all a bunch of "gun-wielding crooks" (nice try at trying to demonize everyone), it doesn't mean that they all shot the officers. If one person killed the officers, then another person should not be charged for that death; a person executed as a result of that death would be wrongfully executed. You have failed to even back up the reasons why the person wasn't wrongfully executed. You resorted to calling them [/font][font=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]"gun-wielding crooks." That's not backing up your argument. Name-calling is not an explanation.

Same old, same old...

[/font]

The point is that the arguments they are using invariably and logically lead to that. Of course they don't say that they advocate abolishing all laws. But to use Christian principles such as mercy and forgiveness (good) and calling justice retribution and vengeance (bad), as the reason for abolishing the death penalty IS in fact saying just that. That any punishment is bad.

Wow more jumping to conclusions and just meshing everyone's statements into one idea.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

Is taking away ones life by putting them in prison until they die not enough?

How is the death penalty beneificial to soceity? or to teh Victims family? it doesnt
bring back what they lost all it does is end more life.

I ask again is thereANYONE reading this thread who would willingly be the person to put to death a Condemmed person? If not why would you want another to do teh dirty work of the punishment that you advocate?

I will quote this and then put it in big bold letters:

Is taking away one's life by putting them in prison until they die not enough?

How is the death penalty beneficial to society? Or to the victim's family? It doesn't bring back what they lost all it does is end more life.

I ask again, is there ANYONE reading this thread who would willingly be the person to put to death a condemned person? If not why would you want another to do the dirty work of the punishment that you advocate?

 

[jamesrwright3]

True.

And as a result, we have an obligation to stick to penalties we can retract.

No, we can still have the death penalty. We would just need to make some reforms to the judicial system, especially for potential DP cases.

 

[k]

No, we can still have the death penalty. We would just need to make some reforms to the judicial system, especially for potential DP cases.

If it is agreed that not one wrongly convicted person should be put to death, then it's contradictory to state we simply need reforms. We are VERY imperfect people, and as such, we are utterly incapable of creating a perfect judicial system that guarantees not one person will be wrongly convicted and put on death row.

 

[jamesrwright3]

If it is agreed that not one wrongly convicted person should be put to death, then it's contradictory to state we simply need reforms. We are VERY imperfect people, and as such, we are utterly incapable of creating a perfect judicial system that guarantees not one person will be wrongly convicted and put on death row.

I disagree. There can be reforms made to the system which would help to prevent such convictions.We can require a higher standard for evidence and other matters in capital cases.

 

[santalucia]

Thank you for the False Dichotomy (I learned the capitalization trick from Paladin Vader. Props).

The third way is to not impose irreversible punishments via an inherently flawed system.

It's not a false dichotomy. Just pointing out the flaws in the arguments presented here.

"A real discussion"? Do you mean one where everyone agrees with your vicious interpretations? I guess so.

My "vicious interpretations"? You do indeed slander me. I mean where it is brought up from the level of such sophomoric argument.

Read back to what triggered this latest explosion of posts. TownCrier asserted the hardcore utilitarian position that the killing of innocents is justified because it will deter the killing of innocents.

This position ignores a few centuries worth of devlopment in ethical and moral analysis. Kant, anybody? John Rawls? Have you even heard of the veil of ignorance method of analysis? The categorical imperative? Sounds like the answer is a big N-O.

I hardly consider Rawls or Kant the ultimate authority, although it's not surprising that you would. I will side more with Robert George.

Simply put, Paul's analysis of government is not applicable to self-governing representative democracies. It is suited to societies in which Christians are a persecuted minority. And I don't mean the kind of "persecution" that Americans whine about. I mean death and dismemberment in the Colisseum.

How utterly ridiculous. You are saying that authority given to the state from God only applies to governments persecuting Christians?? That the state's ability and right to wield justice only applies to those same governments??

 

[Ninja Turtles]

Earlier in this discussion, I made a reference to a play I saw that took testimonials and interviews of people who were on death row and later exonerated. One of the cases involved a couple, but by the time they were exonerated, the husband had already been executed. It was sad. But then I received the following reply for a play (not movie) I saw.

Do you base all your opinions on the theater? First it's movies now a play. Don't confuse fact with fiction. The amount of evidence required to get a sentence of death, presumming you ever run out of appeals, is incredible. Our system doesn't have to be perfect...

This was the statement, I was using entertainment as my reasoning for something, despite the fact that I was using the cases of real people, not fictional characters.

But it seems our poster forgot the earlier statements made and then wrote:

EVERYONE in prison is innocent, just ask them.

I recognized this statement because I knew it was from a movie. Took me awhile to remember, but it was a scene from The Shawshank Redemption.

The Movie Spoiler: The Shawshank Redemption

When Andy proclaims his innocence Red then says, "you'll fit in right here! Everyone in here's innocent!"

So that made me chuckle, a person accusess another of using fiction to back up their argument, and later on this same person uses fiction to support their argument, despite the fact that an actuall correctional officer said most people admit to their crimes in prison.

Then came all these quotes referring to CSI:

You mean about CSI? I was just noticing how you seem to rely heavily on entertainment as a source of information.

Too bad gambling is a sin because I would put real money on an episode of CSI being referenced in a future post by Ninja Turtles.

OK, you're right, you don't watch CSI, or you would know that women have sex with others besides their rapists and men can get vasectomies, be sterile or wear condoms.That is why you let a jury look at all the evidence.

Now, I don't watch CSI, I've never seen the show, but I know it's on CBS. I did some searching and basically it's a show about people investigating crime scenes and finding the evidence behind crimes. However, it appears (I could be wrong) that another argument is being made using fiction as the support. I have a person here talking about CSI as being a reliable source in a seeming reference to an episode where a woman was raped by a man with a vasectomy, or whatever convoluted story they made for TV.

These are the things that bring a smile to my face. It makes me laugh, blatant hypocrisy. LOL

Accused of using fiction, but the accuser only seems to use fiction for their argument. LOL [font=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]
[/font]

 

[Ninja Turtles]

I disagree. There can be reforms made to the system which would help to prevent such convictions.We can require a higher standard for evidence and other matters in capital cases.

And what would those standards be?

One problem you'll notice with death penalty cases are race and economics. How do you reform the system so that these do not become factors?

 

[jamesrwright3]

[bible]Matthew 5:38-39[/bible]

No one with a cross icon should be arguing that "an eye for an eye" is any kind of justice.

We were specifically told that it was not justice.

Eye for eye is not justice.

If we want pre-Christian vengeance-based morality, we know where to find it. However, it is not justice.

I think you are confusing two different situations. In a matter between two private parties, God doesn't want one individual to exact private justice on another individual..literally an eye for an eye. However, the state is a neutral third party and the upholder of law and order and has the authority to punish criminals as it sees fit.

 

[k]

I disagree. There can be reforms made to the system which would help to prevent such convictions.We can require a higher standard for evidence and other matters in capital cases.

Is it being posited that we can have a judicial system that will never put someone to death who was wrongfully convicted? I simply do not understand how imperfect parts can create a perfect whole.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

Is it being posited that we can have a judicial system that will never put someone to death who was wrongfully convicted? I simply do not understand how imperfect parts can create a perfect whole.

It's like what they say in computer language and graphics about data. Garbage in, garbage out. There is no way an imperfect system can create a perfect outcome.

 

[k]

I think you are confusing two different situations. In a matter between two private parties, God doesn't want one individual to exact private justice on another individual..literally an eye for an eye. However, the state is a neutral third party and the upholder of law and order and has the authority to punish criminals as it sees fit.

The State is a NEUTRAL party????????????

If a State is ordained by God's authority (that is the claim being made every single time someone uses Romans 13), then we should NEVER complain about our government, and we never should have invaded Iraq because, after all, Saddam was ordained by God to be the state authority. (Sorry, not trying to digress, but pointing out an obvious problem w/ using Rom. 13)

 

[PACKY]

If there is one lesson that i learned from the pontiff it is forgiveness.
With that being said: to execute another human being is to be just as guilty as they were, the destruction of gods creation is still a sin no matter what laws of man we try to hide behind,

 

[jamesrwright3]

The State is a NEUTRAL party????????????

If a State is ordained by God's authority (that is the claim being made every single time someone uses Romans 13), then we should NEVER complain about our government, and we never should have invaded Iraq because, after all, Saddam was ordained by God to be the state authority. (Sorry, not trying to digress, but pointing out an obvious problem w/ using Rom. 13)

Yep, it is. We shouldn't take PERSONAL revenge on one another. The state is allowed to punish criminals as it sees fit, and use of the DP is implied.