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

[JudgeRightly]

You just learned differently, didn't you?

Loaded question, isn't it?

As you now realize,

More of the same...

it would unjustly kill scores of innocent people.

As you were just told, no it wouldn't.

That doesn't seem like a very good "deterrent" to me. [/COLOR="#FF0000"]And you still haven't told us how many innocent people you're willing to put to death to kill murerers promptly.[/COLOR]

Because, again, it's a loaded question.

By the way, you didn't answer my questions. Please do so:

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.

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

Show us how saving innocent people from unjust execution costs lives.

This is called moving the goalposts.

I have already shown how your position which favors saving innocent lives over punishing the guilty costs lives.

Not why it seems like it should to someone. Show us how it costs lives with testable evidence.

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

And will you profane Me among My people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live, by your lying to My people who listen to lies?” - Ezekiel 13:19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel13:19&version=NKJV

Presumption of innocence is the way America works.

And?

Look, when a person commits a crime, they are guilty the moment they do so, are they not? They're not "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." They're guilty, regardless of what a judge rules, whether his ruling is correct or incorrect.

Whether they are convicted or not is another matter, and it is ONLY IN COURT that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

There are some other nations where that's not true. I think they accept immigrants.

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

This is a McNamara fallacy, or at the very least, special pleading.

You're ignoring the one part of my argument that makes the difference.

The time element.

How quickly does the state put to death the convicted person?

If it's anything more than 48 hours, the death penalty becomes less and less effective.

So show us that evidence.

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.

Wrong.

Again, the crimes they were wrongfully convicted of would have never happened in the first place with a swift and painful execution of murderers.

No way to deny it. Is that all right with you or not?

Saying it doesn't make it so, Barb.

So why so willing to have innocent people executed?

Yet another loaded question.

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

Have you run out of arguments that quickly already, Barbarian?

What I am saying is that it is never ok to kill an innocent person, and it is never ok to let a guilty person go free.

Your problem, Barb, is that God said to put the one convicted of murder to death, which means that you have no right whatsoever to say that doing so is unjust, because God also said, "life for life."

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

Which means that, once again, I have to point out that correlation does not equal causation.

You're ignoring (special pleading against, really) the facts that I stated a few posts ago, that 31 out of 50 states have not executed anyone in the past 10 years, and 37 in the past 5. In other words, I make the point that the reason the death penalty is not currently a strong deterrent is that it is not swiftly enacted for each criminal guilty of a capital crime.

It's what someone told you God says.

Rather, it's something recorded in Ezekiel as being said by God.

And will you profane Me among My people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live, by your lying to My people who listen to lies?” - Ezekiel 13:19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel13:19&version=NKJV

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."

This has been discussed ad nauseum on other threads, and it never gets anywhere, because you (and those who think Jesus abolished the death penalty) never consider the passage as a whole, and what actually happened.

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.

We know you like avoiding questions that poke holes in your position. Answer, please:

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.

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.

And another, new question:

Is there anything wrong with taking God's laws on morality and applying them to society?

 

[The Barbarian]

I think we've come to the end of this. You seem convinced that it's no worse for the state to unjustly take a life, than for it to let someone escape punishment. That's awful, and it's not what Jesus taught.

And your response to the point that your plan would have the state kill scores of innocent people?

Here's the thing:

There is NO PERFECT JUSTICE SYSTEM.

Which is untrue. God's system is perfect. Problem is, men keep deciding that they should do for Him what He won't do Himself.

Again, I can see that you're sincere, and you think you're doing what God wants.

I can only thank God for the Constitution.

 

[Stripe]

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.

You've made the classic statistical error of confusing correlation with causation.

As you see, homicide rates went down as execution rates fell.

And you made that mistake when there is no correlation.

Making things up as you go is not going to cut it.

Which seems to be completely incompatible with your belief that more executions would cut the murder rate. The data show just the opposite.

Show us that. Don't put up a few graphs with slopes that you can crow about; do a rigorous regression analysis and show us the confidence with which you can make your claim. If you're unsure what that means... well, first if you don't know what that means, you shouldn't be talking about statistics.

:think: Actually, that's pretty obvious already.

Anyway, if you don't know how to do a regression analysis, we can walk you through it.

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.

You got told why this is previously. Did you forget? The decline in the murder rate is far more likely to be due to demographics than a change in justice policy.

So there's a trade-off. How many innocent people would it be OK to see murdered in order to set free more murderers?

A percentage or an absolute number would be fine.

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

As you refuse to concede, this is likely due to demographics.

So you're saying it doesn't matter how many innocent people are killed, as long as we make sure we free as many murderers as possible.

Your proposal has killed thousands in Texas alone.

Murderers will kill thousands of innocent people who would have been saved under a good criminal justice system. How is that justice?

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

Show us that.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I think we've come to the end of this.

Then why did you continue to write the rest of your post?

You seem convinced that it's no worse for the state to unjustly take a life, than for it to let someone escape punishment.

And will you profane Me among My people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live, by your lying to My people who listen to lies?” - Ezekiel 13:19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel13:19&version=NKJV

Both profane God. Do not do evil that good may come of it.

That's awful, and it's not what Jesus taught.

So Jesus isn't God? Or perhaps His standard of justice is subject to change?

And your response to the point that your plan would have the state kill scores of innocent people?

Straw man. Please respond to what I actually said, not what you wish I said.

Which is untrue. God's system is perfect.

God's perfect system includes imperfect humans.

Thus, to the extent that humans are involved, it is not perfect.

But today we don't have God's system. We have man's system, which attempts to prevent innocent people from being killed more than it punishes criminals.

Problem is, men keep deciding that they should do for Him what He won't do Himself.

Which has no relevance to this conversation, and in fact, only serves to prove my point, that man's system is imperfect, and any system with man involved is imperfect, so why not make it as righteous as possible and use God's law as the standard, so that whatever effect man has on the result is minimized by the effects of righteous laws.

Again, I can see that you're sincere, and you think you're doing what God wants.

I can only thank God for the Constitution.

And will you profane Me among My people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live, by your lying to My people who listen to lies?” - Ezekiel 13:19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel13:19&version=NKJV

Are you going to profane God, Barb, or are you going to honor Him? Because the current system profanes Him.

 

[The Barbarian]

Are you going to profane God, Barb, or are you going to honor Him? Because the current system profanes Him.

The current system: Homicide rates declining over the past 30 years. Appeals system that saved the lives of over 20 innocent people in one state alone.

And you want to turn it around. No thanks. The blood of innocents profanes him. And that is what you'd get if you get your way.

 

[ok doser]

The blood of innocents profanes him.

How many innocents died in el paso?

And you want those innocents and others like them to continue dying

 

[JudgeRightly]

The current system: Homicide rates declining over the past 30 years. Appeals system that saved the lives of over 20 innocent people in one state alone.

And you want to turn it around. No thanks. The blood of innocents profanes him. And that is what you'd get if you get your way.

Why do you profane God, Barb, by keeping people alive who should not live?

 

[JudgeRightly]

The current system: Homicide rates declining over the past 30 years. Appeals system that saved the lives of over 20 innocent people in one state alone.

And you want to turn it around. No thanks. The blood of innocents profanes him. And that is what you'd get if you get your way.

Why do you profane God, Barb, by keeping people alive who should not live?

Which is more important to you, Barbarian:

Defending declining homicide rates at the cost of innocent lives, or justice?

 

[The Barbarian]

Which is more important to you, Barbarian:

Fewer innocent people dying, which is what declining homicide rates mean. A side effect, is the system also saves many innocent people wrongly condemned to death.

Which is more important to you?

Maintaining the declining homicide rates and a system that has saved many innocent people condemned to death, or rapid executions, at the cost of innocent lives?[/QUOTE]

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The current system: Homicide rates declining over the past 30 years. Appeals system that saved the lives of over 20 innocent people in one state alone.

And you want to turn it around. No thanks. The blood of innocents profanes him. And that is what you'd get if you get your way.

Why do you profane God, Barb, by keeping people alive who should not live?

Why do you profane God by advocating a system that would condemn many innocent people to death?

Do you think it's more important to kill evildoers or to save innocent people?

I get it. You put a higher value on killing the guilty than saving the innocent. I see it the opposite way. That's all there is to say about it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Fix your formatting

 

[JudgeRightly]

Barbarian observes:

We wish he would think.

Why do you profane God by advocating a system that would condemn many innocent people to death?

Loaded question.

The system I advocate is the one God implemented. Punish the guilty, and spare the innocent.

Both are required.

God said show no mercy to the convicted.

Or are you going to ignore what God says?

“One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing,then both men in the controversy shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days.And judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother,then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you.And those who remain shall hear and fear, and hereafter they shall not again commit such evil among you.Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. - Deuteronomy 19:15-21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy19:15-21&version=NKJV

You're more interested in keeping people alive who should not live, and the result is that you are responsible, to some extent, for killing those who should not die.

Do you think it's more important to kill evildoers or to save innocent people?

Both are EQUALLY important.

I get it. You put a higher value on killing the guilty than saving the innocent. I see it the opposite way. That's all there is to say about it.

Are all you have fallacious arguments?

I place EQUAL value on punishing the guilty and protecting the innocent.

To do otherwise results in an imbalance in justice.

The problem is that your mindset has become imbalanced, and so you think that what you advocate is balanced.

Take your ideals, place them on the scale, and place God's word on the other side. If your ideals are lighter or heavier, in other words, if they do not balance out, then you're either more lenient than God, or harsher than God. Both are sins, because both are unjust.

 

[Right Divider]

Both are EQUALLY important.

Dishonest folks love their false dichotomies.

 

[Stripe]

Do you think it's more important to kill evildoers or to save innocent people?

Knowing your propensity for lies, you probably worded the question this way so you could equivocate on "save innocent people," swapping it out for "not convicting innocent people."

As it stands, your question is easy to answer: Executing capital criminals is more important. Innocent people can save themselves.

If you're really looking for the false dichotomy of having the death penalty and preventing wrongful executions, the answer is also easy: Obey God.

It will astound you how much better it is when men honor God by executing those who should die and protecting the innocent. :up:

 

[ok doser]

... declining homicide rates .... declining homicide rates ....

At the same time that gun ownership has skyrocketed?


How can that be?

 

[The Barbarian]

I understand how you think about this. I can only point out that in America, that has never been accepted. I realize you believe God wants to kill the guilty to the point that innocent people are killed. I disagree.

John 8:3 [3] And the scribes and the Pharisees bring unto him a woman taken in adultery: and they set her in the midst, ... [4] And said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery. ... [5] Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou?

... [6] And this they said tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground. ... [7] When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. ... [8] And again stooping down, he wrote on the ground. ... [9] But they hearing this, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest. And Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst. ... [10] Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee?

... [11] Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.


So God clearly doesn't see it that way. The Pharisess were saying "It's the law; she must be killed" And Jesus shamed them into letting her live. How could He be profaning Himself? Instead of following what men told you, follow Him.

An interpretation presented as more adequate is one from an 1895 U.S. Supreme Court case which stated, “it is better to let the crime of a guilty person go unpunished than to condemn the innocent.” This doctrine was dated back to Roman law. Other interpretations are presented, discussed, and analyzed and include one from Jeffrey Reiman and Ernest van den Haag with the reconstruction of a consequential rational as the moral primacy of protecting the innocent against convictions.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=209545

This isn't true in all nations. But it's true in this one. Best get used to it.

 

[ok doser]

(trolling nonsense deleted)

So you think it's acceptable to falsely imprison the innocent?

 

[JudgeRightly]

I understand how you think about this.

You clearly do not.

I can only point out that in America, that has never been accepted.

Who knows what the Barbarian is talking about, because he didn't bother to quote anyone.

I realize you believe God wants to kill the guilty to the point that innocent people are killed. I disagree.

Literally no one has said this.

John 8:3 [3] And the scribes and the Pharisees bring unto him a woman taken in adultery: and they set her in the midst, ... [4] And said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery. ... [5] Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou?

... [6] And this they said tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground. ... [7] When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. ... [8] And again stooping down, he wrote on the ground. ... [9] But they hearing this, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest. And Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst. ... [10] Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee?

... [11] Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.

Repeating an argument when it's been refuted doesn't make the argument true.

The woman was not found guilty because A) there were no witnesses to condemn her (the law required two or three at a minimum) and B) the people who originally accused her were not following the law when they brought only her (and not the one she was committing adultery with).

In other words, she would have been acquitted simply because there was no case against her.

NOT ONLY THAT, but God had forgiven adulterers before, and did not need to repeal the death penalty to do so. Seeing as there's no indication that God repealed the death penalty here, there's no reason to assume He did.

So God clearly doesn't see it that way.

Lying about God is a sin, Barb.

The Pharisess were saying "It's the law; she must be killed"

The Pharisees were hypocrites when they said that, because they weren't obeying the law when they brought her before Jesus.

And Jesus shamed them into letting her live.

Rather, Jesus called them out on their blatant hypocrisy and disregard for the law.

How could He be profaning Himself?

Did God profane Himself when He didn't repeal the death penalty when He forgave David?

Instead of following what men told you, follow Him.

Yeah, Barb. Instead of listening to what men have told you, listen to what God has said:

Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. - Deuteronomy 19:21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy19:21&version=NKJV

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

And will you profane Me among My people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live, by your lying to My people who listen to lies?” - Ezekiel 13:19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel13:19&version=NKJV

An interpretation presented as more adequate is one from an 1895 U.S. Supreme Court case

You should heed Jesus' words:

He answered and said to [Barbarian], [JESUS]“Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?For God commanded, saying, ‘[Do not murder]’; and, ‘He who [murders], let him be put to death.’But you say, ‘[Let's not put murderers to death, just in case they might not have murdered].’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me.And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ”[/JESUS] - Matthew 15:3-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew15:3-9&version=NKJV

which stated, “it is better to let the crime of a guilty person go unpunished than to condemn the innocent.”

An utterly wicked statement, in direct opposition to what God has said:

* It's Not Better to Acquit Ten Murderers than to Convict One Innocent Man: Convicting the innocent and acquiting the guilty are equally horrifying injustices. As the Bible puts it, "He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord" (Proverbs 17:15). The claim that it is better to acquit ten murderers than to convict a single innocent man implies that the one is a greater evil than the other. In reality, they are alike. Whenever we hear a claim about right and wrong that involves a mathematical equation, it typically comes from a humanist, utilitarian mindset (as with John Stuart Mills). We should train oursevelves to automatically question any mathematical claim that attempts to quantify morality. Mankind must not attempt to fine tune a justice system so that it is more likely to let murderers go than to convict the innocent. Why not? First, such a goal ignores God's sentiments on the matter. Secondly, when murderers are more likely to avoid conviction, a murder epidemic may result. Many churches systematically avoid teaching the criminal justice principles that God included throughout the Bible. When Christians offer suggestions for how a criminal justice system should function, at a minimum they owe God the courtesy of knowing what He has said about perjury, admissibility of evidence, incarceration, due process, presumption of innocence, the appeals process, and so on. If a biblically-informed criminal justice system operated for a century, if it turned out that one hundred cases had been wrongly decided (which, with human fallibility, is certainly possible), then fifty or so would have been wrongly decided against the guilty (that is, the guilty man went free, which of course is a ruling against the guilty, since what even he needed most was justice), and fifty verdicts would have been wrongly decided against the innocent (that is, the innocent was wrongly convicted). If the system had been run with the humanist goal of acquitting ten murderers rather than convicting one innocent man, instead of there being a hundred cases of injustice, there would have been thousands, with injustice everywhere. (See more at kgov.com/crime.)

https://kgov.com/two-or-three-eyewitnesses-not-needed-for-an-execution

This doctrine was dated back to Roman law.

Hate to break it to you, Barb, but God set the precedent well before the Romans did.

:think:

"Teaching as doctrine the commandments of men..."

Hmmm...

Other interpretations are presented, discussed, and analyzed and include one from Jeffrey Reiman and Ernest van den Haag with the reconstruction of a consequential rational as the moral primacy of protecting the innocent against convictions.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=209545

:blabla:

This isn't true in all nations. But it's true in this one. Best get used to it.

Don't do evil, Barb, that good may come of it.

That includes abstaining from advocating what is good.

 

[quip]

Any reason why JR's proposal couldn't be achieved within Constitutional parameters?

Are you referring to Due Process?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I understand how you think about this.

You clearly do not.

If not, you're remarkably unable to articulate your beliefs. You've repeated them several times.

I can only point out that in America, that has never been accepted.

Who knows what the Barbarian is talking about, because he didn't bother to quote anyone.

I cited a federal court decision. That's "someone" on all sorts of levels.

I realize you believe God wants to kill the guilty to the point that innocent people are killed. I disagree.

Literally no one has said this.

So you now don't approve of rapid executions, which would kill scores of innocent people?

(Jesus shames the Pharisees into letting a guilty woman go free)

Repeating an argument when it's been refuted doesn't make the argument true.

He didn't repeat an argument. He merely shamed them into not killing her, as the law demanded.

The woman was not found guilty because A) there were no witnesses to condemn her (the law required two or three at a minimum) and B) the people who originally accused her were not following the law when they brought only her (and not the one she was committing adultery with).

Show us that there weren't witnesses. And you're saying that if one guilty person escapes, you must let the other guilty person go free? How so?

(editing God's word to make a point)

I don't think that's a good idea for you to do.

Lying about God is a sin, Barb.

I didn't say you were lying, but I don't think he likes it.

The Pharisees were hypocrites when they said that, because they weren't obeying the law when they brought her before Jesus.

You need to show us that. Show us there were no witnesses, and show us where it says that if one guilty party escapes the other guilty party must go free.

I don't think this is serving any good purpose. If you want to continue, show us that there weren't any witnesses, and that God says if one guilty party escapes, we have to set the other one free. I'll give you the last word now.