Are You Qualified to be the Executioner?

[CabinetMaker]

There are a couple of threads currently running about executing children and mentally incompetent persons for capitol crimes. Many who support capitol punishment draw all their support from the Old Covenant. But we live under the New Covenant.

Jesus was once confronted with the death penalty. It was intended to be a way to trap Jesus but Jesus, being Jesus, was able to use the trap to teach a greater lesson.

John 8 New International Version (NIV) 8 1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

To those people who would execute a child, a person of mental incompetence or anybody else for that matter; Are you worthy to throw the first stone?

 

[Arthur Brain]

The crickets are telling...

 

[glorydaz]

The crickets are telling...

Maybe the subject is getting old. :chuckle:

 

[ok doser]

... we live under the New Covenant.

the new covenant in which there are to be no penalties for lying, raping, stealing, committing murder, committing adultery, etc?


that new covenant?

 

[Tambora]

There are a couple of threads currently running about executing children and mentally incompetent persons for capitol crimes.

For heinous crimes they have committed, not because they are children or mentally incompetent.
Society should be protected from those that commit heinous crimes whether the person committing the crimes can comprehend that it is wrong or not.

 

[CabinetMaker]

the new covenant in which there are to be no penalties for lying, raping, stealing, committing murder, committing adultery, etc?


that new covenant?

Yes, there is to be punishment for crime. Death is not the only punishment available to us. While it is approeatly for the likes of Ted Bundy, it is not always the right penalty. I think that is what Jesus is teaching.

 

[CabinetMaker]

For heinous crimes they have committed, not because they are children or mentally incompetent.
Society should be protected from those that commit heinous crimes whether the person committing the crimes can comprehend that it is wrong or not.

Was there intent to commit a crime? That is always the rub.

 

[ok doser]

I intended to have one beer

I did not intend to have thirteen

I did not intend to drive blind drunk and kill a child on the sidewalk


therefore I am not guilty

 

[Tambora]

Was there intent to commit a crime? That is always the rub.

Society should be protected from heinous crimes whether the person committing the crime realizes they are doing wrong or not.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
If they have shown that they are dangerous to others because of their lack of knowing what is right and wrong, society still needs to be protected from them.

It's an unfortunate situation, but safety still needs to be at the forefront.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Society should be protected from heinous crimes whether the person committing the crime realizes they are doing wrong or not.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
If they have shown that they are dangerous to others because of their lack of knowing what is right and wrong, society still needs to be protected from them.

It's an unfortunate situation, but safety still needs to be at the forefront.

That can be attained by having such people in institutions where they pose no danger, otherwise it's just killing for convenience.

 

[ok doser]

That can be attained by having such people in institutions where they pose no danger...

not possible, unless the patient is restrained 24/7 and heavily medicated (aka "chemical restraints")

Even then, health workers are at risk

how does your "empathy" figure a hellish zombie existence better than a quick death?

 

[Tambora]

That can be attained by having such people in institutions where they pose no danger, otherwise it's just killing for convenience.

It is not for convenience, it is for a heinous crime committed.

 

[Tambora]

not possible, unless the patient is restrained 24/7 and heavily medicated (aka "chemical restraints")

Even then, health workers are at risk

how does your "empathy" figure a hellish zombie existence better than a quick death?

Right.
Just shuffle them off to a place where you can't see them and how they are treated there.
Out of sight, out of mind.

It might even be bearable IF you could afford a high dollar facility with an adequate staff.
But the state run mental facilities are a hell hole.
So understaffed that the patients are dirty and unkept because the staff only does a half-*** job so they won't get in trouble for not completing all the tasks.
The whole place stinks like a dog kennel.
Everyone around you is a complete stranger, no one is there to love you and comfort you.
And for some reason some folks want to call that being caring and humane.

 

[Stripe]

There are a couple of threads currently running about executing children and mentally incompetent persons for capitol crimes.

You have no capacity to construct a rational argument. This is all emotionalism and nonsense.

You appeal to John 8 as if Jesus did away with the law, but you want your own standards adhered to when it comes to sentencing.

You make the law of no effect and you're a hypocrite.

 

[Jonahdog]

Right.
Just shuffle them off to a place where you can't see them and how they are treated there.
Out of sight, out of mind.

It might even be bearable IF you could afford a high dollar facility with an adequate staff.
But the state run mental facilities are a hell hole.
So understaffed that the patients are dirty and unkept because the staff only does a half-*** job so they won't get in trouble for not completing all the tasks.
The whole place stinks like a dog kennel.
Everyone around you is a complete stranger, no one is there to love you and comfort you.
And for some reason some folks want to call that being caring and humane.

You have identified a problem in society. What the solution to that problem?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Society should be protected from heinous crimes whether the person committing the crime realizes they are doing wrong or not.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
If they have shown that they are dangerous to others because of their lack of knowing what is right and wrong, society still needs to be protected from them.

It's an unfortunate situation, but safety still needs to be at the forefront.

Are willing to stand behind your convictions and cast the first stone?

I am willing to use leathal force ro defend met family should the need arise. I support the death penalty for certain crimes but I am not willing to be the exception.

 

[CabinetMaker]

You have no capacity to construct a rational argument. This is all emotionalism and nonsense.

You appeal to John 8 as if Jesus did away with the law, but you want your own standards adhered to when it comes to sentencing.

You make the law of no effect and you're a hypocrite.

Stripe, you have no idea what a rational argument is.

As to the Law, it is what Paul said it should be: my teacher.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It is not for convenience, it is for a heinous crime committed.

A heinous crime requires intent, that's why we have laws that take into account the age, condition, mental development/impairment of a person. It's why we don't put six year old children to death by way of.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Right.
Just shuffle them off to a place where you can't see them and how they are treated there.
Out of sight, out of mind.

It might even be bearable IF you could afford a high dollar facility with an adequate staff.
But the state run mental facilities are a hell hole.
So understaffed that the patients are dirty and unkept because the staff only does a half-*** job so they won't get in trouble for not completing all the tasks.
The whole place stinks like a dog kennel.
Everyone around you is a complete stranger, no one is there to love you and comfort you.
And for some reason some folks want to call that being caring and humane.

Well, I don't know what the laws are like over there but any place of care operating like that would be breaking a whole load of laws over here. We have regulatory bodies (The Care Quality Commission) that regularly inspect places to ensure that they're working in accordance with established codes of practice in care. It's a duty of care to report any such concerns where it comes to suspicions of maltreatment, abuse, unhygienic living conditions etc too. It does go on in care unfortunately but it's hardly the norm and any place operating as you describe should be shut down pronto along with prosecutions for those abusing their positions of care.

 

[ok doser]

A heinous crime requires intent...

So if i get blind drunk and unintentionally drive through a playground and kill seventeen children, that's not a "heinous crime"?


Thompson and venables fully intended to kidnap, torture and murder james Patrick bulger

Why shouldn't they be held accountable for their "heinous crime"?