tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post2780910933134661081..comments2024-03-01T21:01:15.174-06:00Comments on Biblical Christianity: When justice is forgotten (capital punishment)DJPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-36939628028700817352009-08-28T14:04:25.226-05:002009-08-28T14:04:25.226-05:00I think things have trickled off enough that we ca...I think things have trickled off enough that we can sum, and close:<br /><br />There is only one, pan-Biblical standard of justice: restitution (cf. Exodus 22:1-14; Luke 19:8)<br /><br />There is only one, pan-Biblical standard of restitution (justice) for murder: that is the life of the murderer (Genesis 9:6).<br /><br />Though Jesus changed dietary requirements, He not only never changed this standard, but now entrusts the responsibility of capital judgment to the state (Romans 13:4), whose purpose of existence is to "punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good" (1 Peter 2:13-14).<br /><br />Human life is worth just as much today as it was in Noah's day (Genesis 9:6; James 3:9).<br /><br />To suggest that Christians should (defy God's Word and justice and) oppose the death penalty is to suggest that the Cross somehow <i>devalues</i> human life, which is absurd.<br /><br />Opponents really had nothing to offer that didn't instantly collapse. Every argument against the Biblical standard <i>eo ipso</i> was an argument against every court, every law, every penalty, and all justice; they just weren't willing to trace down their own reasoning.<br /><br />So I think we're left with two choices:<br /><br />1. Consult what the Word says about murder and justice — in which case the course is clear.<br /><br />2. Set the Word aside, be guided by gauzy, noble-sounding sentiments and emotions (for the perpetrator, not the victim) — in which case, good luck with godless, nihilistic chaos.<br /><br />Until the next time it comes up.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-55334788147405895422009-08-08T23:39:52.564-05:002009-08-08T23:39:52.564-05:00Have you read back over the comments?
I am propos...Have you read back over the comments?<br /><br />I am proposing that CR can't make the claim that capital punishment is mandated for all people at all time if he doesn't also apply the blood prohibition consistently.<br /><br />His argument arises from Genesis 9 being addressed to Noah, which in CR's understanding makes it universal in scope. In Genesis 9, God not only instructs on capital punishment but also on eating meat with it's blood in it. <br /><br />If CR were to apply his reading of genesis 9 consistently he should be willing to say that all people everywhere are prohibited from eating animal blood. to be fully consistent he should also assert that governments everywhere are bound to enforce such a prohibition on eating animal blood.<br /><br />I am asking if he is willing to make such an unusual case! <br /><br />If not, and he is willing to confine the blood prohibition to a particular nation and time (which i think he ought to), then I would argue that he needs to do the same with capital punishment.reuben//https://www.blogger.com/profile/09346172615307371953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-69175359275882689632009-08-08T13:22:02.020-05:002009-08-08T13:22:02.020-05:00what exactly is your point about blood and how it ...what exactly is your point about blood and how it relates to this post?Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-26287319357534697912009-08-08T02:46:07.964-05:002009-08-08T02:46:07.964-05:00Well CR, maybe you could think about this a little...Well CR, maybe you could think about this a little bit harder?<br /><br />Regardless of the obvious: noah wouldn't have known the difference between the different kinds of red stuff...let me put it another way. Do you consider yourself or anyone else free to eat blood sausage? You know, food with the real haemoglobin-y red stuff.reuben//https://www.blogger.com/profile/09346172615307371953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-23125752516399822702009-08-04T22:53:34.630-05:002009-08-04T22:53:34.630-05:00I've been away using my iPhone to comment so I...I've been away using my iPhone to comment so I may have missed a few words, but there's nothing wrong with my logic. First, it's not my logic, it's God's Word and He couldn't be anymore clearer.<br /><br /><br />Oh yeah, also, the red liquid you see in rare meat is not blood. It's myoglobin protein from the muscles and not hemoglobin from blood.<br /><br />I really have nothing new to say. My case has been made from Scriptures.CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01912897040503058967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-15440198692714033642009-08-03T02:46:24.817-05:002009-08-03T02:46:24.817-05:00CR.
At no point have I said I'm anti the dea...CR. <br /><br />At no point have I said I'm anti the death penalty. In fact I said:<br /><br />"That this killer deserves death is not in question - the question is whether because he deserves it we must kill him."<br /><br />I am in favour of the death penalty - but I believe the objections raised are worthy of consideration. <br /><br />I'm also in favour of waiving the right to carry out the death penalty in certain cases. <br /><br />If a victim's family forgives the criminal is it right to waive the penalty at that point?<br /><br />The logic of your last post is hard to follow. I think there are some words missing. <br /><br />Can you clarify - are we to eat our meat well done? Which part of the Noahic covenant has carried over? I'm not sure that because the "flesh" is universal the "offspring" has to be too...<br /><br />I'm not trying to pretend I'm God here - I'm suggesting your understanding of what God would do is flawed based on what Jesus* did, and what God did when David committed adultery and murder - just because a sentence is just doesn't mean the sentence "must" be carried out. <br /><br />*Depending on your view of the authority of John 7:53 - 8:11. <br /><br />The fact that the wages of sin is death doesn't mean we're to be the ones running around paying those wages, or even ensuring they get paid.Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12317381886477652487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-33700278038829948772009-08-03T01:25:33.390-05:002009-08-03T01:25:33.390-05:00CR, I challenged your understanding of the present...CR, I challenged your understanding of the present universality of this above and you have not responded to me. any reason why?reuben//https://www.blogger.com/profile/09346172615307371953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-24889421414175304692009-08-03T01:08:17.652-05:002009-08-03T01:08:17.652-05:00Nathan,
You are grabbing at straws and letting yo...Nathan,<br /><br />You are grabbing at straws and letting your anti-death penalty views influence how you view Scripture.<br /><br />Moses was clear when he penned Genesis and he clearly stated offspring. The covenant that God made, note, was not with just man, but all living creatures including animals. When God says never again shall ALL flesh be cut off by the waters He means all flesh. Every man bears the image of God, not just the people of God. From EVERY beast and EVERY man, (the Scripture uses every) God requires this reckoning. <br /><br />"We" are not fighting any battle. No one is "just" focusing on justice or "missing" mercy. Certainly God is not "missing" it as the just penalty any sin is capital punishment. But under the Mosaic covenant there were only 35 or so capital crimes and now for all humanity God only requires capital punishment for one crime.<br /><br />You may think God's reckoning is harsh and if you were God maybe you would have it another way, but I would remind you everytime you're tempted to think what you would do if you were God, remind yourself this, you are not God, and you are not God because you are not Holy.CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01912897040503058967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-28215214782219216442009-08-03T00:21:59.381-05:002009-08-03T00:21:59.381-05:00CR - I disagree - I think the offspring referred t...CR - I disagree - I think the offspring referred to is, like everything else in the Old Testament, related to the people of God.<br /><br />I'd like to see you start applying it universally. I'd be interested to see how that goes. <br /><br />You should also take Matthew 5 into account at that point. <br />Lets kill all those who are angry with their brothers too. <br /><br />I wonder if we're fighting the wrong battle here and being a bit Pharisaical in our approach. To focus on justice alone and miss mercy and faithfulness (Matthew 23:23) is to not do the law justice.Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12317381886477652487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-77501540679497006092009-08-02T23:15:07.999-05:002009-08-02T23:15:07.999-05:00Nathan,
The Noahic covenant can be applied univer...Nathan,<br /><br />The Noahic covenant can be applied universally and it must be applied universally. The language in Scriptures is clear. God says "Behold I establish my covenant with you and your OFFSPRING AFTER YOU..."<br /><br />It is irrespective if people want to serve God or not.CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01912897040503058967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-25465745071562754592009-08-02T20:57:31.349-05:002009-08-02T20:57:31.349-05:00"Surely mercy must triumph over justice "..."Surely mercy must triumph over justice "<br /><br />I think it's contextually clear that I'm talking about human actions. God is just. That this killer deserves death is not in question - the question is whether because he deserves it we must kill him.Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12317381886477652487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-30943023141271395202009-08-02T05:46:49.988-05:002009-08-02T05:46:49.988-05:00Nathan, Regarding the woman who had been caught in...Nathan, Regarding the <i>woman who had been caught in adultery</i>, that story (John 7:53-8:11) in all likelihood is not part of Scripture but was rather added long after the fact. While the event may have, in fact, occurred I would be hesitant to use this apocryphal passage to determine doctrine.<br /><br /><i>Surely mercy must triumph over justice </i><br /><br />Don't tell that to those who are thrown into the lake of fire.<br /><br /><i>Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.</i> (Revelation 20:14-15 ESV)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-55356995608478935242009-08-01T23:27:34.984-05:002009-08-01T23:27:34.984-05:00I'll come back for another bite of the cherry....I'll come back for another bite of the cherry.<br /><br />I don't think Calvin's doctrine of government carries much weight in a western democracy - he engaged in the creation of a post-Catholic theocracy. The point I'm making about government is that we should be identifying more with nations surrounding Israel than with Israel when it comes to law and order. <br /><br />I'm happy to suggest that if a theocracy existed, if a church could win for itself the right to hand down law and order on its members, then yes - the death penalty is appropriate. <br /><br />I think it's appropriate to give the government that power too. <br /><br />What I'm trying to get at is that just because a government has that tool at its disposal, it doesn't follow that it should use it by necessity. Consider, for example, Nathan's interaction with David after he committed adultery and murder - David said himself "this man is worthy of death" - and God was merciful. <br /><br />Surely mercy must triumph over justice - and surely a merciful government is something we should be pursuing over and above a just government. It's not that justice is not a concern, it's just a low bar to set. <br /><br />And to make my point about the Noahic law again - the idea that this was "pre God's people" is a little skewiff - pre Israel yes, but it was given to Noah as the leader of God's people in humanity's second start. I don't think this can be applied universally. I would suggest that it, like the Jewish law, applies to those people and nations wanting to serve the Lord.Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12317381886477652487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-78746306482527716752009-08-01T15:38:25.865-05:002009-08-01T15:38:25.865-05:00Sir Aaron,
Not sure why some make the choices the...Sir Aaron,<br /><br />Not sure why some make the choices they do. I've heard several, including: the inmate is against capital punishment, and the more gruesome, the better, so a political objective could be accomplished. Other inmates actually think lethal injection would be worse, because you would be so sedated you couldn't scream out in agony if you were in agony. They might refuse hanging because it's culturally insulting, or the idea occurs to them that they might hang there a while before dying. Who knows? <br /><br />The main point is that the death penalty is intended to accomplish two objectives. One is that the criminal is dead. The second is to send a message to society. And, as Dan points out, we can add a third which ought to be the first. Because it is biblical. <br /><br />I tend to prefer the chair as a method because of the appropriate horror of it, at least in these hyper feminized times. It ought to make people blanch. Considering that stoning to death was the method in the Mosaic Law, the chair seems quite a bit quicker. With the exception of occasional botches, when you have 2,400 volts run from your brain to your calves, death is believed to result in 1/240th of a second because the current depolarizes the brain. <br /><br />I suppose -- if I had to be honest -- there is a mystique about the chair, probably due to the crime dramas of the 1930s and 40s. I love film noir. You seldom can watch one without at least one reference to the chair. That shows the impact it had on the nation's psyche. Watch "Angels With Dirty Faces" with James Cagney, and the scene where they're dragging him to the chair. The point of the scene is that criminals love to beat their chests and brag about how tough they are, but one sight of the chair and all that melts out. There is some debate over whether Cagney's character acted the coward because that's what the priest wanted him to do for the sake of the kids who idolized him, but I tend to think it was because he finally saw death staring him in the face, and he buckled.Solameaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869424956571944997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-73234228981006030152009-08-01T15:29:57.465-05:002009-08-01T15:29:57.465-05:00CR:
I have some difficulty with the interpretatio...CR:<br /><br />I have some difficulty with the interpretation of Genesis 9:6 as a strict commandment to mankind to deliver the death penalty.<br /><br />I'm pro death penalty and believe that the Bible is clear that the death penalty for murder is just and since we are commanded to be just then it follows we would therefore desire to implement the proscribed penalty.<br /><br />I am, however, open-minded towards your view.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-38701246139490295982009-08-01T15:25:36.510-05:002009-08-01T15:25:36.510-05:00The point of the story of Ananias and Sapphira is ...The point of the story of Ananias and Sapphira is that there wasn't some new dispensation of justice in the NT. God's justice didn't change in the "new covenant." It also shows that the death penalty, in and of itself, is not wrong. Now, if you want to argue that our justice system cannot justly determine guilt, then that is another problem that we should deal with from a Biblical worldview.<br /><br />If you use Jesus' interaction with the woman to argue against the death penalty then you must use it also to argue against <i>any</i> criminal punishment for any crime. As was already stated, the whole episode was a trap. First of all, punishment for adultery required a trial with at least two witnesses testifying against the accused. Secondarily, the man should have also been brought up on charges but they didn't do that. Lastly, we have no idea what Jesus wrote in the dirt.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-39184811917695257192009-08-01T09:35:29.171-05:002009-08-01T09:35:29.171-05:00response cont. (they're beggining to stack up)...response cont. (they're beggining to stack up)<br /><br />“I think, personally, that the weight of scripture (particularly the NT) suggests that justice is right and good - but mercy and forgiveness is better.”<br /><br />Note the standard that God sets for civil penalties when giving his law in Deuteronomy 19: 21: “Thus you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”. This passage clearly teaches that the punishment is to be performed in direct proportion to the wrong suffered. Thus ending another’s life unjustly warrants the ending of your own life (and note that Matthew 5:38-42 deals with personal retaliation not civil crimes.) For crying out loud! The victim is the one who deserves your PITY not the one who committed the crime! I can forgive those who insult me and even those who wrong me, however, those who murder are liable to be executed which is justice (and I would like to see you bring up ONE passage which clearly teaches that capital punishment is no longer in effect.)<br /><br />“And, the guilty, unrepentant sinner has an eternity to feel justice for their sin at God's hand.”<br /><br />Yes, however I would like to say that if you wish to use this argument, it can just as easily be applied to the OT as the NT. And sending someone to rot in Hell is much worse then sticking them in some little prison cell for the rest of their life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-14638664905160439312009-08-01T09:34:34.039-05:002009-08-01T09:34:34.039-05:00response cont.
“I wonder where Jesus discourse wi...response cont.<br /><br />“I wonder where Jesus discourse with the adulterous woman fits in. If you can find a pure and just judge, let them throw the stones at the guilty. Jesus abrogates the law's punishment on that woman for her adultery - if the punishment required by law is the same as for murder then who are we to call for "justice". “<br /><br />No he doesn’t, the whole situation was a pharisaical sham setup. The Romans were not going to punish someone for adultery and the Pharisees knew that. So they present Jesus with a case of what should we do with her? If Jesus had said don’t stone her he would have violated mosaic law and would have shown himself to be a false messiah. If he had said go ahead and stone her, the Pharisees would have brought him up on charges of civil disobedience since the Romans reserved the right of capital punishment for themselves. Jesus says that the ONE AMONG THEM who has no sin should throw the first stone. THEY were the ones who had committed adultery with the woman and therefore, this is why they all left. Note also that Jesus never abrogates the civil penalties for her crime, he only forgives her of her sin and tells her to sin no more.<br /><br />Here’s another Dabney quote: “The laws of Moses, therefore, very properly made adultery a capital crime; nor does our Savior, in the incident of the woman taken in adultery, repeal that statute, or disallow its justice. The legislation of modern, nominally Christian nations, is drawn rather from the grossness of Pagan sources than from Biblical principles. The common law of England, and the statutes and usage’s which our Commonwealth has drawn from, present a most inconsistent state. There is no statute whatever for punishing adultery as a crime! And yet a usage, which is as fully recognized both in England and Virginia as any common law, entitles juries to acquit the injured husband of murder who slays the violator of his bed in heat of blood. This seems to be a recognition of the capital guilt of the crime of adultery, and at the same time an allowance, in this case, of the barbarous principle of "goelism," which the law, in all other cases, has so stringently prohibited. But here is the monstrous inconsistency, that if the crime of the adulterer be of long standing, and gradually discovered, no matter how certain the guilt, the husband, because no longer punishing in heat of blood, is debarred from inflicting the just punishment. The only other remedy that remains at the law is an action of damages against the seducer, in which the injured husband is constrained to degrade all his wrongs to the sordid, pecuniary plea of the loss of his wife’s services, as a domestic, by this interference. And juries are instructed, after ascertaining that there has been an unjust interruption of the wife’s domestic services, to appraise the compensation, not at its commercial, but at any imaginary value, which the seducer’s wealth may enable him to pay. Such is the wretched fiction which the law offers to the outraged spouse as the satisfaction for his wrongs.” (source http://www.pbministries.org/R.%20L.%20Dabney/Systematic%20Theology/chapter32.htm)<br /><br />“There's not a whole lot of "there but for the grace of God go I" in this discourse.” <br /><br />God had abundant grace and mercy in forgiving her, however a murderer who comes to faith by the grace of God must still pay for the sin of his murder. You are misreading this passage if you think that it abrogates the civil penalties for adultery.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-79152999309563130762009-08-01T09:31:15.452-05:002009-08-01T09:31:15.452-05:00I’m going to respond to Nathan again
“I would con...I’m going to respond to Nathan again<br /><br />“I would contend that an American understanding of Romans 13 is likely to be different to understandings of others around the world - where the governments are less nominally Christian.”<br /><br />Here’s a few of John Calvin’s comments on Romans 13:4: “For they bear not the sword in vain, etc. It is another part of the office of magistrates, that they ought forcibly to repress the waywardness of evil men, who do not willingly suffer themselves to be governed by laws, and to inflict such punishment on their offenses as God’s judgment requires; for he expressly declares, that they are armed with the sword, not for an empty show, but that they may smite evil-doers.<br /><br />And then he says, An avenger, to execute wrath, etc. This is the same as if it had been said, that he is an executioner of God’s wrath; and this he shows himself to be by having the sword, which the Lord has delivered into his hand. This is a remarkable passage for the purpose of proving the right of the sword; for if the Lord, by arming the magistrate, has also committed to him the use of the sword, whenever he visits the guilty with death, by executing God’s vengeance, he obeys his commands. Contend then do they with God who think it unlawful to shed the blood of wicked men.”<br />(Source: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38.xvii.ii.html)<br /><br />There are different schools of thought in American Christianity, however the Southern Presbyterians tended to be quite close to their Scottish brethren (though differing on the establishment principle) so I’ll quote R.L. Dabney as representative: “As to the delegation of the right of capital punishment for flagrant crimes, the feeble attempt has been made to represent the injunction of Gen. 9:6 as not a precept, but a prediction; not as God’s instruction what ought to be done to the murderer, but His prophecy of what human vindictiveness would do. The context refutes this. This command for the capital punishment of the murderer, having been given to Noah, the second father of mankind, and before there was a chosen people, is of course, universal. Look also at the express injunction of capital punishments for several crimes: for murder, Num. 35:31; for striking a parent; Ex. 21:15; for adultery, Lev. 20:10; for religious imposture, Deut. 13:5. In Numb. 35:33, a reason is given which, on general principles, necessitates the capital punishment of murder. "For blood, it defileth a land, and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it." <br />Capital punishments are also authorized in the New Testament. Rom. 13. assures us that the magistrate "beareth not the sword in vain," but in bearing it he is God’s minister to execute wrath upon the evil doer.” <br />(source: http://www.pbministries.org/R.%20L.%20Dabney/Systematic%20Theology/chapter32.htm)<br /><br />Keep in mind when you are reading Dabney that he was a Southern Confederate and was writing this none too enthused with northern Unitarian ideas of which anti capital punishment was one of them. <br /><br />“If God, as is his want, was happy to personally capitally punish Ananias and Sapphira perhaps we should leave it up to him to capitally punish those worthy of it still...” <br /><br />It is true that God will punish someone whether the state does it or not, however we could just as easily have used that argument in the OT in the many cases where God kills someone outside of the jurisdiction of the civil magistrate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-74663874584417053582009-08-01T00:00:21.143-05:002009-08-01T00:00:21.143-05:00I would contend that an American understanding of ...I would contend that an American understanding of Romans 13 is likely to be different to understandings of others around the world - where the governments are less nominally Christian. <br /><br />I think a better understanding of Romans 13 is that governments are a tool wielded by a sovereign God for the purposes of common grace and maintaining social order. This does not mean that government will always act in that way (abortion for instance...). <br /><br />If your understanding of Government is based solely on Romans 13 then you've got problems - and if your understanding of the judicial role of government is based solely on that passage it's equally flawed.<br /><br />If God, as is his want, was happy to personally capitally punish Ananias and Sapphira perhaps we should leave it up to him to capitally punish those worthy of it still...<br /><br />I wonder where Jesus discourse with the adulterous woman fits in. If you can find a pure and just judge, let them throw the stones at the guilty. Jesus abrogates the law's punishment on that woman for her adultery - if the punishment required by law is the same as for murder then who are we to call for "justice". <br /><br />There's not a whole lot of "there but for the grace of God go I" in this discourse. <br /><br />I think, personally, that the weight of scripture (particularly the NT) suggests that justice is right and good - but mercy and forgiveness is better. <br /><br />And, the guilty, unrepentant sinner has an eternity to feel justice for their sin at God's hand.Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12317381886477652487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-75188977812872255882009-07-31T23:04:30.012-05:002009-07-31T23:04:30.012-05:00Sir Aaron,
The command that murderers be put to ...Sir Aaron, <br /><br />The command that murderers be put to death was not just for Israel. First, Israel did not exist yet. It was given to mankind. The command to put murderers to death did not just apply to Israel anymore than what the Lord said about He creating man and that the man and his wife shall be one flesh only applied to Israel. It didn't. It applied to everyone.CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01912897040503058967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-27150020023551953542009-07-31T22:15:42.706-05:002009-07-31T22:15:42.706-05:00Joshua:
I'd say that Scripture doesn't co...Joshua:<br /><br />I'd say that Scripture doesn't command us or government to proscribe the death penalty. Those commands were given only to the nation of Israel. However, there are a lot of principles and wise practices to be learned from those commands.<br /><br />And with respect to the NT, God didn't have much of a problem proscribing the death penalty for Ananias and Sapphira.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-23920929792045148322009-07-31T22:11:30.402-05:002009-07-31T22:11:30.402-05:00solameanie: why would anybody pick the electric c...solameanie: why would anybody pick the electric chair over hanging?Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-66180832344043587712009-07-31T22:10:49.811-05:002009-07-31T22:10:49.811-05:00Ben:
You said: "And SIr Aaron, what does yo...Ben:<br /><br />You said: "<i>And SIr Aaron, what does you comment quoted above mean? That's an unjustified slur on people who are freed from prison on the grounds that they were unjustly imprisoned.</i>"<br /><br />I disagree. I did say there was a possibility of a shawshank redemption, which is a reference to the movie. In that case, a man was truly innocent and wrongly convicted through no fault of the justice system (IMO). So I did say such a sitiuation were possible. However, many people who are "unjustly imprisoned" are hardly that. Often times they are let out on a legal technicality (i.e. the police didn't keep the DNA or there wasn't enough to let the defense test it, etc.). Then you have the people who are let out, and may (and I emphasize may) not have committed the crime in question, but committed other such crimes which is why the Police suspected them in the first place. Then you have instances where the DNA is simply inconclusive which doesn't mean the suspect didn't do it. So my point was that there are very rarely actual innocent people convicted. And furthermore, the death penalty is not an automatic sentence for murder. It has to be sought by the prosecution, and at least federally, means that the evidence is overwhelming that the subject committed the crime and that it was done with particular malice. States run the gambit of course, since prosecutions are done on a county by county basis, but even then, in most instances, the murder wasn't the only issue considered when the death penalty is sought. But you hardly hear about that in the news.<br /><br />In my case, we had to exclude evidence of two additional murders based on a legal technicality.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-83258175374382489742009-07-31T21:00:22.772-05:002009-07-31T21:00:22.772-05:00Here's my solution to the problem, but people ...<a href="http://users.bestweb.net/~rg/Electric%20Chairs/Americas%20Electric%20Chairs.htm" rel="nofollow">Here's my solution </a>to the problem, but people think I am mean.Solameaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869424956571944997noreply@blogger.com