Properly Enforcing the Death Penalty

[JudgeRightly]

Then how many innocent lives would have been lost if those wrongfully convicted weren't allowed to appeal? Plenty is what.

Far fewer than under the current system.

You acknowledge that a judge has right to counsel from peers and experts before making his ruling which in fairness, he would have to have.

Not only is it acknowledged, it's expected.

Everyone involved could arrive at the same conclusion based on the evidence available at the time so a judge can make what appears to be the correct decision with all of the information at his disposal at the time.

So why do you need more points of accountability when one will suffice?

Further down the line new evidence can come to light that undermines his former ruling

Why do you assume that this will be the norm?

so then what? Haul him up and charge him with being accountable for a mistake

All the more reason to make the best effort of uncovering the truth, using the resources at his disposal.

cos that sounds like scapegoating.

And if he did his due diligence, then he should be fine, no?

There shouldn't be a single point of accountability

Why? Because you say so?

If two or three witnesses are enough to establish a strong likelihood or guilt/innocence then well and good.

Why do you doubt God when He says that two or three are sufficient to establish a matter?

If they aren't then more is obviously required.

If you cannot establish guilt with two or three witnesses, then you don't have sufficient evidence to establish guilt, and thus, there would be no trial.

You've already acknowledged that more than three is okay.

Duh.

But "two or three" is the minimum needed.

Judicial negligence is one thing and see above.

Supra.

There really isn't

I have no idea what you're referring to here, because you refuse to respond directly to my points, and instead provide a blanket response to my posts.

and okay, we have a different system to ones that primitive bronze age tribes

Genesis 4:22

were limited to

Why do you assume God's moral standards cannot apply to the modern era?

but under yours there'd be people carted off to a swift execution who weren't even guilty of the crime.

It would happen, but it would be extremely rare.

That's as acceptable as letting someone off on a technicality, that is to say not at all.

Of course it's unacceptable. But humans are fallible.

Your hyperbole about it being a completely broken system is just your own supposition.

False.

It has faults as outlined already and improvements do need making but it's not as bad as you like to exaggerate.

I'm not exaggerating. You cannot put new wine into an old wineskin.

Your guarantees that your ideal of the DP would practically result in zero crime is nothing but hot air, no matter how much you may ardently believe such to be the case.

Well it's a good thing I didn't say that then, isn't it?

Cases where guilt/innocence are proved beyond doubt remove human fallibility from the equation.

No, they don't, because even those cases require humans, fallible humans, to make the final judgement, to present the evidence, to investigate the crime.

You talk about prison being insufficient punishment and call it inhumane?

Correct.

Which is it?

It is insufficient because it's not harsh enough.
It is inhumane because it treats the criminals like animals, which they are not.

I don't see why that's so hard to understand.

You make it sound like something that nobody would want on the one hand (which I sure wouldn't)

You seem to want prisons to punish criminals, do you not?

and then make it sound like a picnic.

Compared to some neighborhoods, it's a picnic, sadly.

It isn't.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

I've seen enough on prisons from my country to America to along with being friends with someone who's served time to know fine well I would't wanna spend a single day in one.

Yet you want to enforce that on potentially innocent people, simply because enough evidence could not be provided to prove, "beyond a shadow of a doubt," or what have you, that they are guilty?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Far fewer than under the current system.



Not only is it acknowledged, it's expected.



So why do you need more points of accountability when one will suffice?



Why do you assume that this will be the norm?



All the more reason to make the best effort of uncovering the truth, using the resources at his disposal.



And if he did his due diligence, then he should be fine, no?



Why? Because you say so?



Why do you doubt God when He says that two or three are sufficient to establish a matter?



If you cannot establish guilt with two or three witnesses, then you don't have sufficient evidence to establish guilt, and thus, there would be no trial.



Duh.

But "two or three" is the minimum needed.



Supra.



I have no idea what you're referring to here, because you refuse to respond directly to my points, and instead provide a blanket response to my posts.



Genesis 4:22



Why do you assume God's moral standards cannot apply to the modern era?



It would happen, but it would be extremely rare.



Of course it's unacceptable. But humans are fallible.



False.



I'm not exaggerating. You cannot put new wine into an old wineskin.



Well it's a good thing I didn't say that then, isn't it?



No, they don't, because even those cases require humans, fallible humans, to make the final judgement, to present the evidence, to investigate the crime.



Correct.



It is insufficient because it's not harsh enough.
It is inhumane because it treats the criminals like animals, which they are not.

I don't see why that's so hard to understand.



You seem to want prisons to punish criminals, do you not?



Compared to some neighborhoods, it's a picnic, sadly.



Saying it doesn't make it so.



Yet you want to enforce that on potentially innocent people, simply because enough evidence could not be provided to prove, "beyond a shadow of a doubt," or what have you, that they are guilty?

Of course it wouldn't be fewer, it would be monumentally higher. If you're adamant about having swift executions upon conviction for capitol crimes without the convicted having any recourse for appeal then you don't need a calculator to do the obvious math on the score.

It's not 'one point of accountability', it's several. Unless this judge is completely remiss and irresponsible in his judgement then how is it squarely his fault if he makes a ruling based on the best evidence and counsel available to him?

There's plenty of cases where people have been exonerated of crimes where evidence has proven their innocence and not because of judicial neglect.

The judge may make the best ruling with what he has so are you still gonna charge one for that if evidence comes to light that upends his ruling?

Because basic logic and common sense says so.

I'm not 'doubting God', I'm differentiating between rulings given to bronze age tribes and the standards for evidence we have now before convicting people. You say you're okay with more than two or three witnesses but you're not really are you?

Stop needlessly parsing out my responses and there won't be a problem.

Use some common sense on the score. If we have the means to far more reliably determine guilt/innocence nowadays then would God not want us to make use of them?

Again, see my first line in response, of course it wouldn't be rare under your proposals.

Cos you say so? Pfffft.

Yeah, you are exaggerating, by some degree as well...

Then what was that 'guarantee' about then?

Nope, cases where the evidence proves something removes human fallibility in any decision making process. Kinda the entire point.

So, you think that something that's inhumane can somehow not be harsh enough?! Do you know what the definition of inhumane even is? You're all over the map when it comes to the subject of prison and you really need to educate yourself before commenting further. Hint: It can't be a picnic and inhumane at the same time for starters...

 

[JudgeRightly]

Of course it wouldn't be fewer, it would be monumentally higher.

No, it wouldn't be higher.

You keep forgetting that the death penalty, properly enforced, is a deterrent against crime.

All it would take is one or two swiftly and painfully enforced executions and the crime rate would plummet to almost zero overnight. Why? Because criminals would, generally speaking, rather keep living than be faced with their mortality.

If you're adamant about having swift executions upon conviction for capitol crimes without the convicted having any recourse for appeal then you don't need a calculator to do the obvious math on the score.

Calculators have nothing to do with this, Arty, and what's more, God does not expect us to try to make such calculations.

If a person is convicted on the testimony of two or three witnesses of a capital crime, they are swiftly executed.

This means that 1) there was enough evidence to convict (that means that the evidence points to them being guilty; a person is guilty the moment they commit a crime, but is presumed innocent until it's established in court, which is what we call "conviction"), and 2) that they will never commit the same crime again.

If they cannot commit the same crime again, then you have saved however many people who might have fallen victim to that criminal's actions later on.

Their execution also acts as a deterrent against the next criminal from committing the same or similar level crime, which means that HIS victims are now spared from harm.

These reasons alone are why God expects us to execute those guilty of capital crimes.

It's not 'one point of accountability', it's several.

The judge is the one who makes the call, based on the evidence, as to whether or not a person is guilty in a case.

Thus, a SINGLE point of accountability.

Unless this judge is completely remiss and irresponsible in his judgement then how is it squarely his fault if he makes a ruling based on the best evidence and counsel available to him?

Why would it be his fault if he makes a ruling based on the the best evidence he has?

Pretty sure I said that he could be put on trial for judicial negligence, not that he would always be convicted of it.

If a judge is irresponsible in his judgement, and wrongly convicts someone of a capital crime, and then evidence comes out that the person was wrongly convicted, then that evidence can be used against him in his trial, but since two or three witnesses are required, an investigation must be done. If that investigation finds evidence that the judge was negligent, then yes, he will be held accountable.

On the other hand:

If a judge is responsible in his judgement, but wrongly convicts someone of a capital crime, and then evidence comes out that the person was wrongly convicted, then that evidence can be used against him in his trial, but since two or three witnesses are required, an investigation must be done. If that investigation finds evidence that the judge was not negligent, then no, he will not be held accountable for the wrongful death. He did his due diligence. He would be punished for making a poor decision, but not as severely as if he had been negligent.

There's plenty of cases where people have been exonerated of crimes where evidence has proven their innocence and not because of judicial neglect.

Now imagine if the standard was not what it was for those cases, but rather two or three witnesses, with a single judge directly questioning the suspects and people involved, while hundreds of investigators, instead of just a few, look for evidence pertaining to the crime.

That's what it would be like under my system.

The judge may make the best ruling with what he has so are you still gonna charge one for that if evidence comes to light that upends his ruling?

Why would he be charged with negligence?

Where did I ever say he would be?

Because basic logic and common sense says so.

My position is that one person makes the ruling in any given case. How is that not a "single point of accountability" according to "basic logic and common sense"?

I'm not 'doubting God', I'm differentiating between rulings given to bronze age tribes

Genesis 4:22

and the standards for evidence we have now before convicting people.

The standards we have now are worse than the standards God gave.

You say you're okay with more than two or three witnesses but you're not really are you?

Why wouldn't I be?

Again, two or three is a minimum, not a minimum and maximum.

Stop needlessly parsing out my responses and there won't be a problem.

I respond to the points you attempt to make.

Use some common sense on the score. If we have the means to far more reliably determine guilt/innocence nowadays then would God not want us to make use of them?

Please quote ANYONE who has said we should not.

Again, see my first line in response, of course it wouldn't be rare under your proposals.

Yes, it would be, because that's what God promises.

Yeah, you are exaggerating, by some degree as well...

Your opinion has been noted.

Then what was that 'guarantee' about then?

Go read my post again. It's still there.

Nope, cases where the evidence proves something removes human fallibility in any decision making process. Kinda the entire point.

You cannot remove human fallibility from a system if you do not remove the humans it requires.

Or are you saying that humans are infallible?

So, you think that something that's inhumane can somehow not be harsh enough?!

Correct.

Do you know what the definition of inhumane even is?

Inhumane means that you do not treat someone (or something) with the respect they deserve.

Putting people in prison is by definition inhumane, because you treat the people you put in the prisons like they're animals to be caged (but that isn't surprising considering what's taught in public schools, teaching children that they're descended from animals, and not specially made by a Creator).

You're all over the map when it comes to the subject of prison

I'm not.

and you really need to educate yourself before commenting further.

Calling me stupid isn't a valid argument, Arty.

Hint: It can't be a picnic and inhumane at the same time for starters...

I didn't call it a picnic. That's your word. I merely stated, after you accused me of treating it like a picnic, regarding prison, "Compared to some neighborhoods, it's a picnic, sadly."

But what I said before that is, "prison is not harsh enough of a punishment," and "prison is inhumane."

The two statements are true.

They are inhumane, because they treat people like animals to be caged. For the punishment to NOT be inhumane, they need to be treated like human beings. Thus, the harshness of the punishment must be RAISED (hence "not harsh enough") to be suitable to punish a human being.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

[Clete]

I've not read this entire thread but what I have read seems to show that those who are arguing against Right Divider are commonly making the mistake of evaluating a biblical system of justice from within the context of our current society. This is a huge mistake and all of the objections having to do with executing the innocent or with the idea of holding the judge responsible for the decisions made in his courtroom all make this error.
There would be fewer innocent people get killed under the biblical system than are outright murdered today by previously convicted criminals^* who have been set free by our current criminal "justice" system. And, I said that exactly right. Fewer people would get killed - total. That is, if you add up all the murder victims, the rightly convicted and then executed criminals^* AND the wrongly convicted and then executed innocents, that number wouldn't be a high as is the current number is of people who get murdered by convicted criminals who should have been executed but where instead allowed to live and then who killed someone, either in prison or after they are released on parole.

For any of you with the wherewithall to actually look up that number, it isn't a great big big number. The point here being that if you want the fewest number of innocent people killed, then have a justice system that actually deters crime and realize that you are not wiser than God.

​

As for holding judges responsible for the decisions made in their courtroom, people seem to think that just because a wrongful conviction is discovered that it means the judge was at fault. This is not the case. It MIGHT have been the judge's fault but that wouldn't be the normal case. There would have to be an investigation to see whether there was a rush to judgment or whether the conviction was lawful and reasonable given the evidence that the judge had at the time. This, again, would be made far easier than any such thing would be in our current system because there would be a tiny fraction of the crime that there is today. This would not only make for fewer opportunities to get it wrong but would also make it easier to investigate the crimes that do occur so as to get them right the first time.

^*"Criminals" refers here not only to murderers but also to those who commit other capital crimes such as adultery, rape, child molestation, incest, sodomy, bestiality, etc.​

 

[JudgeRightly]

I've not read this entire thread

Worth reading the entire thread, when you have time.

but what I have read seems to show that those who are arguing against Right Divider

I feel like people get me and RD mixed up more than they should... haha

are commonly making the mistake of evaluating a biblical system of justice from within the context of our current society.

It's one of the biggest problems I face when discussing this topic, and topics like this. No one seems to be able to think outside their own little box of reality.

This is a huge mistake and all of the objections having to do with executing the innocent or with the idea of holding the judge responsible for the decisions made in his courtroom all make this error.
There would be fewer innocent people get killed under the biblical system than are outright murdered today by previously convicted criminals^* who have been set free by our current criminal "justice" system. And, I said that exactly right. Fewer people would get killed - total. That is, if you add up all the murder victims, the rightly convicted and then executed criminals^* AND the wrongly convicted and then executed innocents, that number wouldn't be a high as is the current number is of people who get murdered by convicted criminals who should have been executed but where instead allowed to live and then who killed someone, either in prison or after they are released on parole.

This is what I've been trying to get across to Arty for the past several pages. Then again, he is "@Arthur Brain," after all...

For any of you with the wherewithall to actually look up that number, it isn't a great big big number. The point here being that if you want the fewest number of innocent people killed, then have a justice system that actually deters crime and realize that you are not wiser than God.

I just don't get how people think they can come up with a better system than God did.

And then they try to diminish or outright dismiss the system He came up with by claiming that it was given to "bronze-age tribes," whatever that's supposed to mean... (As you probably know, iron-working was a thing even before the Flood of Noah.)

As for holding judges responsible for the decisions made in their courtroom, people seem to think that just because a wrongful conviction is discovered that it means the judge was at fault. This is not the case. It MIGHT have been the judge's fault but that wouldn't be the normal case. There would have to be an investigation to see whether there was a rush to judgment or whether the conviction was lawful and reasonable given the evidence that the judge had at the time. This, again, would be made far easier than any such thing would be in our current system because there would be a tiny fraction of the crime that there is today. This would not only make for fewer opportunities to get it wrong but would also make it easier to investigate the crimes that do occur so as to get them right the first time.

Exactly!

^*"Criminals" refers here not only to murderers but also to those who commit other capital crimes such as adultery, rape, child molestation, incest, sodomy, bestiality, etc.​

 

[Right Divider]

I feel like people get me and RD mixed up more than they should... haha

You're "right" about that!

 

[Clete]

You're "right" about that!

A failure to rightly divide leads to a failure to judge rightly!

I can tell you that I'd be proud to be mixed up with either of you guys!

 

[Right Divider]

A failure to rightly divide leads to a failure to judge rightly!

I can tell you that I'd be proud to be mixed up with either of you guys!

I know that if they are mixing me up with JudgeRightly, that I'm in good shape.

 

[Clete]

I just don't get how people think they can come up with a better system than God did.

Most Christians don't even know that such a system exists and non-Christians don't believe God came up with anything in the first place.

Both sets of people have lived in a society that has forgotten what justice looks like for over two centuries now. They're jaded to the point that having a punishment that actually fits the crime sounds like barbaric insanity. Many people today believe that executing a murderer is just more murder and that ANY amount of prison time given for ANY offense is the very definition of justice, so long as its "legal".

"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

 

[Right Divider]

"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

I am constantly reminded of this verse these days.

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, it wouldn't be higher.

You keep forgetting that the death penalty, properly enforced, is a deterrent against crime.

All it would take is one or two swiftly and painfully enforced executions and the crime rate would plummet to almost zero overnight. Why? Because criminals would, generally speaking, rather keep living than be faced with their mortality.



Calculators have nothing to do with this, Arty, and what's more, God does not expect us to try to make such calculations.

If a person is convicted on the testimony of two or three witnesses of a capital crime, they are swiftly executed.

This means that 1) there was enough evidence to convict (that means that the evidence points to them being guilty; a person is guilty the moment they commit a crime, but is presumed innocent until it's established in court, which is what we call "conviction"), and 2) that they will never commit the same crime again.

If they cannot commit the same crime again, then you have saved however many people who might have fallen victim to that criminal's actions later on.

Their execution also acts as a deterrent against the next criminal from committing the same or similar level crime, which means that HIS victims are now spared from harm.

These reasons alone are why God expects us to execute those guilty of capital crimes.



The judge is the one who makes the call, based on the evidence, as to whether or not a person is guilty in a case.

Thus, a SINGLE point of accountability.



Why would it be his fault if he makes a ruling based on the the best evidence he has?

Pretty sure I said that he could be put on trial for judicial negligence, not that he would always be convicted of it.

If a judge is irresponsible in his judgement, and wrongly convicts someone of a capital crime, and then evidence comes out that the person was wrongly convicted, then that evidence can be used against him in his trial, but since two or three witnesses are required, an investigation must be done. If that investigation finds evidence that the judge was negligent, then yes, he will be held accountable.

On the other hand:

If a judge is responsible in his judgement, but wrongly convicts someone of a capital crime, and then evidence comes out that the person was wrongly convicted, then that evidence can be used against him in his trial, but since two or three witnesses are required, an investigation must be done. If that investigation finds evidence that the judge was not negligent, then no, he will not be held accountable for the wrongful death. He did his due diligence. He would be punished for making a poor decision, but not as severely as if he had been negligent.



Now imagine if the standard was not what it was for those cases, but rather two or three witnesses, with a single judge directly questioning the suspects and people involved, while hundreds of investigators, instead of just a few, look for evidence pertaining to the crime.

That's what it would be like under my system.



Why would he be charged with negligence?

Where did I ever say he would be?



My position is that one person makes the ruling in any given case. How is that not a "single point of accountability" according to "basic logic and common sense"?



Genesis 4:22



The standards we have now are worse than the standards God gave.



Why wouldn't I be?

Again, two or three is a minimum, not a minimum and maximum.



I respond to the points you attempt to make.



Please quote ANYONE who has said we should not.



Yes, it would be, because that's what God promises.



Your opinion has been noted.



Go read my post again. It's still there.



You cannot remove human fallibility from a system if you do not remove the humans it requires.

Or are you saying that humans are infallible?



Correct.



Inhumane means that you do not treat someone (or something) with the respect they deserve.

Putting people in prison is by definition inhumane, because you treat the people you put in the prisons like they're animals to be caged (but that isn't surprising considering what's taught in public schools, teaching children that they're descended from animals, and not specially made by a Creator).



I'm not.



Calling me stupid isn't a valid argument, Arty.



I didn't call it a picnic. That's your word. I merely stated, after you accused me of treating it like a picnic, regarding prison, "Compared to some neighborhoods, it's a picnic, sadly."

But what I said before that is, "prison is not harsh enough of a punishment," and "prison is inhumane."

The two statements are true.

They are inhumane, because they treat people like animals to be caged. For the punishment to NOT be inhumane, they need to be treated like human beings. Thus, the harshness of the punishment must be RAISED (hence "not harsh enough") to be suitable to punish a human being.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

just gonna touch on this as not got time in the forseeable to devote much to this anymore and in all honesty it would be pretty much pointless as it is anyway. We don't live in the bronze age anymore and have far more accurate ways of determining guilt/innocence. The far right religious emphasis on judgement and condemnation is hardly going away albeit thankfully kept in check in the real world and caging animals up is often cruel and inhumane. It's all moot anyway as the DP is never going to be enforced as you and others would see 'fit' anyway but fun as usual JR...

 

[JudgeRightly]

We don't live in the bronze age anymore

Genesis 4:22

and have far more accurate ways of determining guilt/innocence.

Yes, and?

The far right religious emphasis on judgement and condemnation is hardly going away albeit thankfully kept in check in the real world

God is on the right. You would try to "keep God in check."

and caging animals up is often cruel and inhumane.

So why do it to humans by putting them in cages?

It's all moot anyway as the DP is never going to be enforced as you and others would see 'fit' anyway but fun as usual JR...

So what?

Therefore we shouldn't advocate for what is right? If people like myself don't, then the death penalty will never be enforced, and society will continue it's slide into lawlessness, and eventual collapse.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It's all moot anyway as the DP is never going to be enforced as you and others would see 'fit' anyway

"...in war, in mountain climbing, in learning to skate, or swim, or ride a bicycle, even in fastening a stiff collar with cold fingers, people quite often do what seemed impossible before they did it. It is wonderful what you can do when you have to."

- C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

 

[Arthur Brain]

"...in war, in mountain climbing, in learning to skate, or swim, or ride a bicycle, even in fastening a stiff collar with cold fingers, people quite often do what seemed impossible before they did it. It is wonderful what you can do when you have to."

- C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

It can certainly be wonderful and inspiring to accomplish things that seemed out of reach but I highly doubt C.S. Lewis would endorse what you advocate anyway. He was hardly on the far right...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Genesis 4:22



Yes, and?



God is on the right. You would try to "keep God in check."



So why do it to humans by putting them in cages?



So what?

Therefore we shouldn't advocate for what is right? If people like myself don't, then the death penalty will never be enforced, and society will continue it's slide into lawlessness, and eventual collapse.

Well, your 'ideal' of what is right will never be enforced so yeah, it's moot. Put simply, you're on the far right and it will never be accepted unless some cataclysmic event sends humanity back into something akin to the bronze age again if it isn't wiped out. Clamour for it all you want, it ain't gonna happen but by all means continue.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It can certainly be wonderful and inspiring to accomplish things that seemed out of reach

So why are you trying to take that away from me?

but I highly doubt C.S. Lewis would endorse what you advocate anyway.

Sure, he would.

He was hardly on the far right...

You don't seem to know C.S. Lewis very well.

Well, your 'ideal' of what is right will never be enforced

Not with that attitude, it won't.

so yeah, it's moot.

Therefore.... something...

Put simply, you're on the far right

More accurately, I'm on God's side. But that's irrelevant.

and it will never be accepted

It certainly won't if no one advocates for it.

unless some cataclysmic event

No, all it would take is people standing up for what's right.

sends humanity back into something akin to the bronze age

Genesis 4:22

again if it isn't wiped out.

Our current society is heading that way very quickly.

Clamour for it all you want,

Yes, I will continue to clamor for justice to be enforced.

it ain't gonna happen but by all means continue.

Again, not with that attitude it won't.

 

[Arthur Brain]

So why are you trying to take that away from me?



Sure, he would.



You don't seem to know C.S. Lewist very well.



Not with that attitude, it won't.



Therefore.... something...



More accurately, I'm on God's side. But that's irrelevant.



It certainly won't if no one advocates for it.



No, all it would take is people standing up for what's right.



Genesis 4:22



Our current society is heading that way very quickly.



Yes, I will continue to clamor for justice to be enforced.



Again, not with that attitude it won't.

Nobody's trying to take anything away from you.

Lewis was a thoughtful writer with a far more philosophical bent entwined with empathy than I've ever seen you display JR.

You can claim to be on the side of anyone you want, just words in the end.

People standing for what's right? According to you?

Our society is a lot healthier than it was decades ago when segregation was the norm and all manner else.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Nobody's trying to take anything away from you.

Liar.

Lewis was a thoughtful writer

Indeed!

with a far more philosophical bent entwined with empathy than I've ever seen you display JR.

No, just not what you would define as "empathy" (which isn't).

I love my neighbor. I want my neighbor to be punished appropriately if he does wrong.

You'd rather he be locked up like an animal. That's not punishment, it's just cruelty.

Hypocrite.

You can claim to be on the side of anyone you want, just words in the end.

Words have meanings, Arthur.

People standing for what's right? According to you?

According to Scripture.

Our society is a lot healthier than it was decades ago when segregation was the norm and all manner else.

It may be healthier in some respects, but we're far worse off than we were "decades ago."

 

[Arthur Brain]

Liar.



Indeed!



No, just not what you would define as "empathy" (which isn't).

I love my neighbor. I want my neighbor to be punished appropriately if he does wrong.

You'd rather he be locked up like an animal. That's not punishment, it's just cruelty.

Hypocrite.



Words have meanings, Arthur.



According to Scripture.



It may be healthier in some respects, but we're far worse off than we were "decades ago."

Oh get a grip, I don't want to take anything away from you. You can clamour, advocate for whatever you want, hey, it's your time to waste.

Lewis was indeed a thoughtful writer and about as far removed from far right fundamentalism as it gets. When he converted to Christianity he became Anglican and remained so during his life. Touting him as an author in support of what you propose is an insult to the man. If you want an author in support then you need to look elsewhere, might I suggest Jack Chick (obviously I'm using the term "author" in the loosest possible sense there).

There's nothing 'loving' about the kind of system that you'd have enacted on society and nor do I "want" to lock people up or risk putting people to death for crimes they may not have committed. Prison is a punishment, sure. Losing freedom and liberty is hardly pleasant but necessary for the protection of society if nothing else, certainly for violent, sexual offenders.

Society is healthier in all manner of respects and far better than it was decades ago. By a long shot.

 

[ok doser]

It may be healthier in some respects, but we're far worse off than we were "decades ago."

The disintegration of the family, the rejection of Christ, the ever increasing prevalence of illegal drug use and psychological problems, the embrace of immorality and perversion, the unprecedented murder rate among young black males

But hey no more mean tweets ( /segregation) right?