Well of course you haven't, nor could you as it would be impossible to do so.
I neither want or advocate anything of the sort.
My position, not that it should really need explaining is this. Execution should only occur where there's 100% proof of guilt.
Those that are convicted of murder, rape, molestation are incarcerated for life in prison
unless evidence transpires that conclusively proves their guilt beyond doubt or exonerates them of the crime.
It's really not that difficult. Now, if you want to debate my actual position instead of a made up one then be my guest.
But if you persist in going along with falsehoods that completely misrepresent my view then that's neither honest or intelligent. Your call.
Absolutely. But that doesn't include the protocol of "never execute anyone."If God abhors the shedding of innocent blood then protocols in place to ensure that doesn't happen should be observed should't they?
Depends on your definition of "swiftly". Certainly 10 years would not be swiftly. Would 5? How about 2? Vs how long does one have to keep a murderer or rapist around, just to make sure? And how do you know it has been long enough and enough diligence has been exercised?There's plenty cases where a swiftly enacted DP upon conviction would have resulted in the loss of innocent lives.
So, instead of addressing my actual position you're intent on still jumping on the coat tails of one of Stripe's silly soundbites? Heck, even he's done a flip on that whereby now I want people caged for life. Hilarious in some senses, in another it's just typical Stripe.Except we have.
But you do. What you advocate for will result in murderers and rapists being set free.
Most cases, that is not possible, and would result in most criminal being let go due to lack of sufficient evidence.
But they won't be convicted, based on your standard, because there won't be "100% proof of guilt available.
And so, the murderer and the rapist will be let go, and not punished.
As mentioned by Derf and Stripe, you want to lock up potentially innocent people simply because "we don't have enough evidence to convict them"? "Proof beyond doubt" doesn't work, because it's anyone can reasonably doubt anything. That test, that threshold, it's a bad test because it's a negative standard, and it's hard, almost impossible, to prove a negative, whereas God's standard in the Bible is a positive standard. It's not doubt, because it's very difficult to prove a negative, and it's hard to quantify a negative, and so proving something beyond a negative? It's like you're trying to prove something in it's relationship to a negative. It's too confusing, and the loophole it creates is big enough for sophisticated defense attorneys to drive a semi through in a case where someone is an obvious murderer, should be convicted, and he's let go.
Talk about backwards...
That's really ironic, coming from you who has done nothing BUT debate a made up position, persist in going along with falsehoods, misrepresent our views.
Then what's wrong with the yardstick being 100%? That way no innocent blood would be shed.Absolutely. But that doesn't include the protocol of "never execute anyone."
Here's a good one:
Deuteronomy 21:1-9 KJV — If one be found slain in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who hath slain him: Then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities which are round about him that is slain: And it shall be, that the city which is next unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take an heifer, which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke; And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley, which is neither eared nor sown, and shall strike off the heifer's neck there in the valley: And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them the LORD thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the LORD; and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried: And all the elders of that city, that are next unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the valley: And they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. Be merciful, O LORD, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel's charge. And the blood shall be forgiven them. So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the LORD.
Depends on your definition of "swiftly". Certainly 10 years would not be swiftly. Would 5? How about 2? Vs how long does one have to keep a murderer or rapist around, just to make sure? And how do you know it has been long enough and enough diligence has been exercised?
Are you able to determine if someone is guilty 100% of the time?Then what's wrong with the yardstick being 100%? That way no innocent blood would be shed.
God recognizes the value of appeal, but doesn't require it. The first thing we could do is eliminate automatic appeal of all death penalty sentences, right?Well, where it comes to what a few on here advocate as swift then execution pretty much immediately happens upon conviction.
You don't give answers on point either. You do realize that there are cases where absolute proof has been ascertained, right?Because I don't bury my head in the sand.
Yes. But perfection is not possible in this current world.
Not in all convictions, no.Are you able to determine if someone is guilty 100% of the time?
God recognizes the value of appeal, but doesn't require it. The first thing we could do is eliminate automatic appeal of all death penalty sentences, right?
Very rarely.You don't give answers on point either. You do realize that there are cases where absolute proof has been ascertained, right?
Again, no kidding.That particular goal is certainly possible if absolute guilt is established before taking someone's life.