30 Days, A beginning to the end of mass shootings.

tieman55

Member
A beginning to the end mass shootings.

Patrick Crusius, 21, the eco-terrorist has admitted to the Aug. 3rd 2019 murders in El Paso Texas, he is seen on TV, and anyone who has read his manifesto can easily detect he is not incapacitated by insanity.

The solution is simple. On September 3rd at 10:30 AM Patrick Crusius is put to death on pay per view with the proceeds going to the victims.

After just a couple of these executions these senseless murders will abate.

This is a just outcome as it gives Mr. Crusius plenty of time to repent.
 

tieman55

Member
A good question. The 30 days is a arbitrary time frame, but I think reasonable, as you have to allow for the pay per view to gain the largest possible audience.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
A beginning to the end mass shootings.

Patrick Crusius, 21, the eco-terrorist has admitted to the Aug. 3rd 2019 murders in El Paso Texas

Although authorities did not publicly confirm his identity or describe the precise contents of the manifesto, a document posted on the website 8chan about an hour and a half before the rampage spoke about the “invasion” of Latino immigrants and said the writer agreed with the shooter who killed worshipers at a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand. That document was posted by an anonymous user who posted another document under the file name “P._Crusius.” That file was taken down, and it was not clear what it contained.

Doesn't sound much like an "ecoterrorist", unless you think it's a synonym for "white nationalist."

The solution is simple. On September 3rd at 10:30 AM Patrick Crusius is put to death on pay per view with the proceeds going to the victims.

After just a couple of these executions these senseless murders will abate.

There's a problem, which might not seem important to you; across the United States there are dozens of people who are alive today only because after being wrongly condemned to death for crimes they didn't commit, they were able to play the appeals process long enough for someone to prove they were innocent.

How many of them would you be willing to kill, in order to more swiftly kill murderers?

I'd like to know how many you think would be acceptable. Maybe a percentage?
 

tieman55

Member
Perhaps we read different manifestos? The one I read, mentioned environmental concerns 3 times more often than anything about Latinos. The manifesto I read never reefers to African Americans or Jews. Yes immigration was a major theme of the manifesto but always in the light of "sustainability" not in reference to race. This is the MO of a eco-terrorist.

Yes, the fake news and their allies will cast this as white nationalist but if the manifesto is authentic, then it is fake news once again.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Perhaps we read different manifestos?

Apparently so. This one...

posted on the website 8chan about an hour and a half before the rampage spoke about the “invasion” of Latino immigrants and said the writer agreed with the shooter who killed worshipers at a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand.

Is clearly by a white nationalist, who did the shooting.

Yes, the white nationalists and their allies will cast this as ecoterrorism, but if the manifesto is authentic, then they are inventing fake news once again.

You didn't say how many innocent people you were willing to have killed in order to have more rapid executions. How many do you think would be acceptable?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Perhaps we read different manifestos? The one I read, mentioned environmental concerns 3 times more often than anything about Latinos. The manifesto I read never reefers to African Americans or Jews. Yes immigration was a major theme of the manifesto but always in the light of "sustainability" not in reference to race. This is the MO of a eco-terrorist.

Yes, the fake news and their allies will cast this as white nationalist but if the manifesto is authentic, then it is fake news once again.

Justice is not important to Barbarian. The only thing he cares about is tying everything bad to someone named trump.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
A good question. The 30 days is a arbitrary time frame, but I think reasonable, as you have to allow for the pay per view to gain the largest possible audience.
He should be put to death within 24 hours.

Put the pressure on.

30 days? "Eh, I'll repent later."

Day 30 arrives: "Why do I need to repent? I did nothing wrong!"

Giving a criminal time to relax allows him to solidify in his mind that he did nothing wrong, because there's no immediate punishment.

Executing a criminal within 24 hours, while giving him time to repent, also forces him to consider his eternal destination.

50% of the time when someone is confronted with the reality of their death, they turn to God. The other 50% they turn away.

God said that he has set out life and death, and to choose. There's no third option.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Although authorities did not publicly confirm his identity or describe the precise contents of the manifesto, a document posted on the website 8chan about an hour and a half before the rampage spoke about the “invasion” of Latino immigrants and said the writer agreed with the shooter who killed worshipers at a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand. That document was posted by an anonymous user who posted another document under the file name “P._Crusius.” That file was taken down, and it was not clear what it contained.

Doesn't sound much like an "ecoterrorist", unless you think it's a synonym for "white nationalist."



There's a problem, which might not seem important to you; across the United States there are dozens of people who are alive today only because after being wrongly condemned to death for crimes they didn't commit, they were able to play the appeals process long enough for someone to prove they were innocent.

How many of them would you be willing to kill, in order to more swiftly kill murderers?

I'd like to know how many you think would be acceptable. Maybe a percentage?
Think of how many more would be alive if, instead of coddling the convicted murderers, we put them to death, and instilled fear into the hearts of would-be murderers, deterring them from killing others.

I imagine there would be THOUSANDS of people alive today just by putting to death a few convicted murderers within 48 hours of them being caught.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Think of how many more would be alive if, instead of coddling the convicted murderers, we put them to death,

We kill far more murderers than the vast majority of nations. We are just behind China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam and Egypt. Is that the company you'd like American to be in?

Let's see how much good it's doing:

We're 94th in the world in homicide rates. Which puts us in the top 100 of about 230. Mostly Africa and us. That's the neighborhood you want?

Well, maybe it's all the states in the US that have banned executions. Let's look at that...

murderratesdpvsnodp-2016.png


Again, more homicides in states that kill murderers. consistently more, over a long period of time. Notice that as murder rates have fallen, the difference between death penalty states and non-death penalty states has gotten larger.

and instilled fear into the hearts of would-be murderers, deterring them from killing others.

Maybe murderers just aren't very smart, you think?

I imagine there would be THOUSANDS of people alive today just by putting to death a few convicted murderers within 48 hours of them being caught.

See above. Turns out, the data show just the opposite. But you didn't say how many innocent people you were willing to have killed in order to have more rapid executions. How many do you think would be acceptable?

As you know, in Texas alone, there are dozens of people wrongly sentenced to death, who are alive only because they kept appeals going long enough for someone to find that they could not have committed those murders. Would you be O.K. with killing that many innocent people in order to kill murderers more quickly?

I imagine there would be THOUSANDS of people alive today just by putting to death a few convicted murderers within 48 hours of them being caught.

I can see you're sincere in your imagining, and I don't doubt you believe what you're saying. Your intention is to save innocent lives, not take them. But reality is found in the facts. If you had your way, more innocent people will die. And mostly by the state taking those lives. How many such killings of innocent people would be acceptable to you, in order to kill murderers more quickly?
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
We kill far more murderers than the vast majority of nations. We are just behind China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam and Egypt. Is that the company you'd like American to be in?

Let's see how much good it's doing:

We're 94th in the world in homicide rates. Which puts us in the top 100 of about 230. Mostly Africa and us. That's the neighborhood you want?

Well, maybe it's all the states in the US that have banned executions. Let's look at that...

murderratesdpvsnodp-2016.png


Again, more homicides in states that kill murderers. consistently more, over a long period of time. Notice that as murder rates have fallen, the difference between death penalty states and non-death penalty states has gotten larger.



Maybe murderers just aren't very smart, you think?



See above. Turns out, the data show just the opposite. But you didn't say how many innocent people you were willing to have killed in order to have more rapid executions. How many do you think would be acceptable?

As you know, in Texas alone, there are dozens of people wrongly sentenced to death, who are alive only because they kept appeals going long enough for someone to find that they could not have committed those murders. Would you be O.K. with killing that many innocent people in order to kill murderers more quickly?



I can see you're sincere in your imagining, and I don't doubt you believe what you're saying. Your intention is to save innocent lives, not take them. But reality is found in the facts. If you had your way, more innocent people will die. And mostly by the state taking those lives. How many such killings of innocent people would be acceptable to you, in order to kill murderers more quickly?

Legan was shot by officers while holding his still smoking gun

And innocent lives were saved


Are you worried that perhaps the officers erred, that legan might have been innocent?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Well, maybe it's all the states in the US that have banned executions. Let's look at that...
Again with this useless statistic? You got shown how this is wrong last time. You got lied to. Have a closer look at those states and tell us which ones actually executed anyone, rather than simply having a statute on the books.

Again, more homicides in states that kill murderers. consistently more, over a long period of time.
Except that no. You got lied to and you fell for it twice now.

Turns out, the data show just the opposite.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Again with this useless statistic? You got shown how this is wrong last time. You got lied to. Have a closer look at those states and tell us which ones actually executed anyone, rather than simply having a statute on the books.

Except that no. You got lied to and you fell for it twice now.

Turns out, the data show just the opposite.

Deliberately dishonest, elderly confused or just a troll?


What do you think?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
We kill far more murderers than the vast majority of nations.

That's funny, you provide the homicide rates, but don't provide the execution rates.

Let's see what reality says:

21 states DO NOT have the death penalty as punishment for crimes.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/state-and-federal-info/state-by-state

Of the 29 that DO, 4 of them have a governor-imposed moratorium against it.

So, in other words, 25 states put people to death, while 25 don't.

In addition to those states that do not have a death penalty (21 states), of the ones that do, 10 of them have not executed anyone in the past 10 years, and an addition 6 states have not executed anyone in the past five years.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions/executions-overview/states-with-no-recent-executions

In other words, 37 states have not executed anyone in the past 5 years.

As of June 20, 2019, ONLY TEN PRISONERS have been executed this year, and in only 5 states.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions/2019

For those 10 executions, the average number of years from sentencing to execution is 24.2 years, with the shortest time being 17, and the longest being 34 years.

In 2018, there were 25 people executed, averaging years from sentence to execution is 24.24 years, shortest 7, longest 38.

2017, there were 23 executions, average wait time 19.52 years, shortest 8 years, longest 34 years.

etc....

In other words, perfectly in line with what God promises in Ecclesiastes 8:11.

Which is why my argument is NOT just "execute murderers," but instead my argument is "execute murderers within 48 hours."

We are just behind China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam and Egypt. Is that the company you'd like American to be in?

America's execution rates are NOWHERE NEAR China's, which is literally orders of magnitude higher.

Let's see how much good it's doing:

We're 94th in the world in homicide rates. Which puts us in the top 100 of about 230. Mostly Africa and us. That's the neighborhood you want?

Well, maybe it's all the states in the US that have banned executions. Let's look at that...

murderratesdpvsnodp-2016.png


Again, more homicides in states that kill murderers. consistently more, over a long period of time. Notice that as murder rates have fallen, the difference between death penalty states and non-death penalty states has gotten larger.

The statistics say that homicide rates peaked around 1963, but have only fallen to about HALF of that as measured since 1900.

In other words, the overall trend since 1900 is still UP in numbers of homicide, even though the rate is decreasing.

Maybe murderers just aren't very smart, you think?

People who resort to crime are poor problem solvers.

See above. Turns out, the data show just the opposite. But you didn't say how many innocent people you were willing to have killed in order to have more rapid executions. How many do you think would be acceptable?

As you know, in Texas alone, there are dozens of people wrongly sentenced to death, who are alive only because they kept appeals going long enough for someone to find that they could not have committed those murders. Would you be O.K. with killing that many innocent people in order to kill murderers more quickly?

The goal is to minimize BOTH the number of innocent people killed AND the number of criminals let go.

The current system only minimizes the former.

God guarantees that if you execute justice swiftly, there will not be a crime epidemic (such as the one we have today in the US).

I can see you're sincere in your imagining, and I don't doubt you believe what you're saying.

Of course I do, because what I'm saying comes directly from the Bible.

Your intention is to save innocent lives, not take them.

No, my intention is JUSTICE. That includes BOTH saving innocent lives, AND punishing criminals.

But reality is found in the facts. If you had your way, more innocent people will die.

In the short term, that may be possible. And by short term, I'm talking about only a few days.

Once it's sunk in that criminals would be punished within 48 hours of being caught, and 24 hours of sentencing, crime will drop because the death penalty would once again be an effective deterrent against crime.

As it stands now, it's lost it's deterrent effect because it takes FAR TOO LONG for a criminal to be executed after sentencing, if they're ever executed.

And mostly by the state taking those lives. How many such killings of innocent people would be acceptable to you, in order to kill murderers more quickly?

You're argument is that my system might have innocent people put to death.

But that argument equally applies to your argument as well, because the system you advocate (or at least defend) ALSO might have innocent people put to death.

Here's the thing:

There is NO PERFECT JUSTICE SYSTEM.

There will ALWAYS be mistakes made, because we live in a fallen world.

God, in His infinite wisdom, deemed certain punishments appropriate for certain crimes, not a one of those includes locking people up like animals for long periods of time. Instead, the punishments God deemed appropriate could be done swiftly, and they were painful enough that no one would willingly want to be punished with them, which translates to being less willing to commit the crime.

GOD, not man, said to put criminals to death if they have committed a capital crime.

GOD, not man, said to flog or maim those who harmed someone physically.

GOD, not man, said to force criminals to pay restitution to those whom they have harmed financially.

God, not man, said to keep criminals locked up TEMPORARILY until the criminals could be sentenced, and then afterwards, if they weren't executed, they were to be let go.

And GOD said all of that even though man is fallen in nature.

Why?

Because those punishments are just.

And get this:

God never said that lawyers were required, nor did He say that a criminal could appeal his case after sentencing, but rather, He holds the judges accountable for their judgments.

If I had my way, we would have a system SIMILAR to the one Israel had, and we would have SIMILAR laws (excluding the symbolic ordinances given by God ONLY to Israel).
 
Last edited:

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
That's funny, you provide the homicide rates, but don't provide the execution rates.

Not like it's a secret:
The 10 countries that execute the most people:
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-countries-that-execute-the-most-people-2016-4

Just what I told you. Do you really think I'd say it if I couldn't back it up?

Barbarian observes:
Let's see what reality says:
murderratesdpvsnodp-2016.png


21 states DO NOT have the death penalty as punishment for crimes.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/state-and-federal-info/state-by-state

Of the 29 that DO, 4 of them have a governor-imposed moratorium against it.

So, in other words, 25 states put people to death, while 25 don't.

In other words, 37 states have not executed anyone in the past 5 years.

About half of all the executions in 2018 took place in Texas, which carried out 13 death sentences. Tennessee was second with three. Alabama, Florida and Georgia each had two
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/executions-remain-at-near-record-lows-in-2018

All of those have an above-average homicide rate.

In 2018, there were 25 people executed, averaging years from sentence to execution is 24.24 years, shortest 7, longest 38.

2017, there were 23 executions, average wait time 19.52 years, shortest 8 years, longest 34 years.

Which is why my argument is NOT just "execute murderers," but instead my argument is "execute murderers within 48 hours."

As I showed you, the lengthy appeals process saved over 20 innocent people in Texas alone, because they lived long enough for someone to prove they were innocent. You still haven't told me how many of those innocent people you'd be willing to have killed in order to make sure we kill murderers promptly.

America's execution rates are NOWHERE NEAR China's, which is literally orders of magnitude higher.

"Well, we aren't as bad as the Chinese government" seems like setting the bar way too low to me.

The statistics say that homicide rates peaked around 1963, but have only fallen to about HALF of that as measured since 1900.

Well, not quite...

violence-stylized2.png


As you see, the homicide rates today are much less than the average for the early 1900s. You can always cherry-pick a year to "prove" whatever you like, but the trends are obvious.

ExecutionTrendChart.jpg


As you see, homicide rates went down as execution rates fell. Which seems to be completely incompatible with your belief that more executions would cut the murder rate. The data show just the opposite.

In other words, the overall trend since 1900 is still UP in numbers of homicide, even though the rate is decreasing.

Yes, as population grows, one expects more homicides, if the tendency to commit homicide remains constant. However, the rate of homicides has dropped markedly as the number of executions has fallen. So that's important to keep in mind.

People who resort to crime are poor problem solvers.

And have little foresight about consequences, which probably accounts for a lot of the data showing that the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent.

The goal is to minimize BOTH the number of innocent people killed AND the number of criminals let go.

So there's a trade-off. How many of those innocent people would it be O.K. to kill in order to kill more murderers?

A percentage or an absolute number would be find.

God guarantees that if you execute justice swiftly, there will not be a crime epidemic (such as the one we have today in the US).

As you have seen, crime rates have dropped markedly in the last three decades.

Of course I do, because what I'm saying comes directly from the Bible.

So you're saying it doesn't matter how many innocent people we kill, so long as we make sure we kill as many murderers as possible?

No, my intention is JUSTICE. That includes BOTH saving innocent lives, AND punishing criminals.

But your proposal would have killed at least 20 innocent people in Texas alone.

Once it's sunk in that criminals would be punished within 48 hours of being caught, and 24 hours of sentencing,

...the state will kill scores of innocent people who would have been saved under the law today. How is that justice?

crime will drop because the death penalty would once again be an effective deterrent against crime.

I know you believe that. But the data show just the opposite result. Killing more people, is nicely correlated with higher murder rates.

You're argument is that my system might have innocent people put to death.

No "might" about it. Under your proposal, all of those innocent people would have been put to death by the state.

But that argument equally applies to your argument as well, because the system you advocate (or at least defend) ALSO might have innocent people put to death.

The death penalty is justified only if we are absolutely sure we have the right person. As you see, the present standard falls far short of that. And yes, those 20 are only the lucky ones who played the system long enough to be cleared of guilt. We don't know how many others were innocent and failed to be cleared.

Here's the thing:

There is NO PERFECT JUSTICE SYSTEM.

One American Marxist excused executions in the Soviet Union by saying "you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs." I have to disagree.

There will ALWAYS be mistakes made, because we live in a fallen world.

So you're saying it doesn't matter how many innocent people we kill, so long as we execute murderers quickly? You seem very reluctant to face that issue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
He should be put to death within 24 hours.

Put the pressure on.

30 days? "Eh, I'll repent later."

Day 30 arrives: "Why do I need to repent? I did nothing wrong!"

Giving a criminal time to relax allows him to solidify in his mind that he did nothing wrong, because there's no immediate punishment.

Executing a criminal within 24 hours, while giving him time to repent, also forces him to consider his eternal destination.

50% of the time when someone is confronted with the reality of their death, they turn to God. The other 50% they turn away.

God said that he has set out life and death, and to choose. There's no third option.


And this is why we have a Constitution, to protect us from people like you.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
First of all, you really need to work on your formatting skills.

Here, use this link to study up:

http://theologyonline.com/misc.php?do=bbcode

Now, onto your post.

Not like it's a secret:
The 10 countries that execute the most people:
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-countries-that-execute-the-most-people-2016-4

Just what I told you. Do you really think I'd say it if I couldn't back it up?

You say a lot of things without being able to back them up.

Barbarian observes:
Let's see what reality says:
murderratesdpvsnodp-2016.png




About half of all the executions in 2018 took place in Texas, which carried out 13 death sentences. Tennessee was second with three. Alabama, Florida and Georgia each had two
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/executions-remain-at-near-record-lows-in-2018

All of those have an above-average homicide rate.

And how long did it take for them to actually execute the criminals after sentencing? Was it within 24-48 hours? or was it several years after the fact?

My premise, Barbarian, is that a SWIFT punishment is a sufficient deterrent against crime.

Executing criminals years after the fact is not swift.

As I showed you, the lengthy appeals process saved over 20 innocent people in Texas alone,

At the cost of how many lives, Barb?

How many people were killed by the ones who were let go because of the system that is biased towards saving the innocent over punishing the guilty?

My guess is that it's more than 20.

because they lived long enough for someone to prove they were innocent.

You're ignoring the premise of my position, that if we had a properly implemented justice system, the load on the justice system wouldn't be so high, and investigators could do a much better job of investigating, leading to fewer innocent people being convicted.

As it stands now, the current system cannot handle the load of all the crime that goes on, and so innocent people are put through it where otherwise they wouldn't be likely to even be suspected.

Again, when you have a properly implemented justice system, then as a rule of thumb, the innocent are protected, and the criminals are punished, and that serves as a deterrent to those who would commit crime.

You still haven't told me how many of those innocent people you'd be willing to have killed in order to make sure we kill murderers promptly.

I don't answer that question, Barb, because it assumes the truth of your position.

God says it is equally wicked to kill an innocent person as it is to let a guilty person live.

BOTH profane God. BOTH should be avoided equally.

Your system tries to protect the innocent more than it punishes the guilty, and so it fails at BOTH.

"Well, we aren't as bad as the Chinese government" seems like setting the bar way too low to me.

This coming from someone who advocates a system that tries to protect the innocent more than punishing the guilty, in direct opposition to what God says, which is that BOTH are equally important.

Well, not quite...

violence-stylized2.png

Would you please post the link to where you found that image?

I'm not too knowledgable on how WordPress urls work, so me trying to modify the link to get to the source page probably won't work.

And besides, just looking at the link makes me wonder if it's not just a page for promoting a book...

Here's a much more reliable site:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAQegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw3TWNIQ20p8aATmPE0V9G6S
(sorry, it links to a pdf, so that's the best link I can find...)

See Page 6 (page number is 38 at the bottom left corner), which shows the murder rate since 1900.

As you see, the homicide rates today are much less than the average for the early 1900s.

See the above link.

You can always cherry-pick a year to "prove" whatever you like, but the trends are obvious.

The "trend" since 1900 is still "up," and the death penalty was still enforced then.

ExecutionTrendChart.jpg


As you see, homicide rates went down as execution rates fell. Which seems to be completely incompatible with your belief that more executions would cut the murder rate.

That's because most of the criminals were locked up.

If there's no criminals on the streets, there's no crime.

But eventually, those criminals are released, or they escape, or they teach other criminals while in prison how to do the things they did.

The data show just the opposite.

Rather, it is perfectly in line with my position for the above reason.

Yes, as population grows, one expects more homicides, if the tendency to commit homicide remains constant. However, the rate of homicides has dropped markedly as the number of executions has fallen. So that's important to keep in mind.

Again the reason that the homicide rate has fallen is that we're locking up all the criminals, or they don't become repeat offenders because they kill themselves.

Correlation DOES NOT EQUAL causation.

And have little foresight about consequences, which probably accounts for a lot of the data showing that the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent.

Which is something my position predicts, but you have to try to explain.

As the Bible says, the Law is the great teacher. It teaches people how to behave in society.

When you have bad laws (and that includes the punishments that go with them), or too many of them, the people either ignore them, or are not taught them.

When you have GOOD laws, on the other hand, that are few in number, and easy to understand, it is far less likely that a criminal won't know the law he's breaking.

So there's a trade-off. How many of those innocent people would it be O.K. to kill in order to kill more murderers?

A percentage or an absolute number would be find.

Again, your question assumes the truth of your position, which is why I won't answer it.

God says that killing the innocent and protecting the guilty are EQUALLY evil.

Your position inherently favors protecting the innocent, and neglects killing those deserving of death.

As you have seen, crime rates have dropped markedly in the last three decades.

That was never in question.

What's in question is the "why".

So you're saying it doesn't matter how many innocent people we kill, so long as we make sure we kill as many murderers as possible?

No, that's not what I'm saying.

But your proposal would have killed at least 20 innocent people in Texas alone.

Only if you assume the truth of your own position.

Rather, those 20 people would never have been at risk of being punished, because the crimes they were convicted of wouldn't have happened in the first place.

...the state will kill scores of innocent people who would have been saved under the law today.

No, Barb, that's false.

Your position assumes that people are just mindless drones that can't react to their environment.

If would-be criminals see that other criminals are being caught and, within 48 hours, punished appropriately, the state would only have to execute two or three criminals before the crime rate drops to near zero. And yes, I mean ALL crime.

How is that justice?

How is executing a murderer for murder justice?

You claim to be a Christian, but you don't know the answer to that?

Because God says "life for life" is just.

I know you believe that.

It has nothing to do with what I believe, Barb. It's what the Bible says.

Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. - Ecclesiastes 8:11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes8:11&version=NKJV

But the data show just the opposite result.

So you're calling God a liar?

Killing more people, is nicely correlated with higher murder rates.

Correlation DOES NOT EQUAL causation.

No "might" about it. Under your proposal, all of those innocent people would have been put to death by the state.

Rather, the crime they were convicted of would have never occurred, and thus they wouldn't have ever been convicted. See how that works?

The death penalty is justified only if we are absolutely sure we have the right person.

This is in direct contradiction to what God says, which is that two or three witnesses shall establish a matter.

As you see, the present standard falls far short of that.

The present standard is far short of the best, sure, but not for the reasons you think.

And yes, those 20 are only the lucky ones who played the system long enough to be cleared of guilt. We don't know how many others were innocent and failed to be cleared.

And this is an appeal to emotion.

God says to punish those convicted of committing a crime swiftly and painfully. Doing so deters criminals from committing more crime.

One American Marxist excused executions in the Soviet Union by saying "you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs." I have to disagree.

And... How is that relevant? Or are you attempting to compare my position with that of a Marxist?

So you're saying it doesn't matter how many innocent people we kill, so long as we execute murderers quickly?

No, I'm saying that by putting murderers to death swiftly, you deter other would-be murderers from committing murder, preventing the innocent from being harmed, either by being murdered, or by being convicted in place of the real murderer.

You seem very reluctant to face that issue.

Allow me to say the same about you in regards to facing the fact that GOD is the one who said to execute those convicted of capital crimes, which means that it's not me that you're disagreeing with, but rather God.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
And this is why we have a Constitution, to protect us from people like you.

What you mean is, to protect you against the punishments God deemed just?

Because God is the one who said to put the one convicted of a capital crime to death swiftly and painfully, not me.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
You say a lot of things without being able to back them up.

You just learned differently, didn't you?

And how long did it take for them to actually execute the criminals after sentencing? Was it within 24-48 hours? or was it several years after the fact?

My premise, Barbarian, is that a SWIFT punishment is a sufficient deterrent against crime.

As you now realize, it would unjustly kill scores of innocent people. That doesn't seem like a very good "deterrent" to me. And you still haven't told us how many innocent people you're willing to put to death to kill murerers promptly.

Barbarian observes:
As I showed you, the lengthy appeals process saved over 20 innocent people in Texas alone,

At the cost of how many lives, Barb?

Show us how saving innocent people from unjust execution costs lives. Not why it seems like it should to someone. Show us how it costs lives with testable evidence.

How many people were killed by the ones who were let go because of the system that is biased towards saving the innocent over punishing the guilty?

Presumption of innocence is the way America works. There are some other nations where that's not true. I think they accept immigrants.

My guess is that it's more than 20.

How about your evidence? The evidence shows that states that don't kill murderers have fewer murders than states that do.

You're ignoring the premise of my position, that if we had a properly implemented justice system, the load on the justice system wouldn't be so high, and investigators could do a much better job of investigating, leading to fewer innocent people being convicted.

So show us that evidence.

I don't answer that question, Barb, because it assumes the truth of your position.

It's not an arguable point. We have all those people wrongly condemned, who would have been killed by the state, if you had your way. No way to deny it. Is that all right with you or not?

God says it is equally wicked to kill an innocent person as it is to let a guilty person live.

So why so willing to have innocent people executed?

BOTH profane God. BOTH should be avoided equally.

So you're saying one innocent person executed avoid letting one guilty person go free, is an acceptable arrangement?

Your system tries to protect the innocent more than it punishes the guilty, and so it fails at BOTH.

I merely note that states that don't kill murderers have lower murder rates. That seems to be a good thing to me.

This coming from someone who advocates a system that tries to protect the innocent more than punishing the guilty, in direct opposition to what God says, which is that BOTH are equally important.

It's what someone told you God says. But when Jesus was put in the position of deciding on a death penalty case according to OT laws, His response was:

"Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."

Would you please post the link to where you found that image?

It's on a lot of sites, but here's the first one that came up:
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/06/long-term-trend-in-homicide-rates.html

You could always get the result you want by carefully limiting the years you covered. Cherry-picking isn't very useful; I could use the same data to show the opposite. But the trend is for homicides to decline over time.

I get that someone cherry picked OT laws, deleting the ones they didn't like and taking the ones they did, and then tried to apply from God's theocracy in Israel, the same thing to a government of men in this country. As Madison noted, such things have always led to corruption, evil, and horror.
 
Top