Properly Enforcing the Death Penalty

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
And those who disagree with me are stupid, along with having a rock for a brain. Blah, blah, blah.
They are if they choose to lie and/or lack understanding. Anyone who accuses me of wanting to see murderers and rapists go free is one or both of those things. Simple as that.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I am not wading through the entirety of this mega parsed out response,

Your loss.

why do you do that?

Because it allows me to thoroughly dismantle bad arguments such as yours.

I'll pick up on certain points and compact it from there.

Good for you.

The context was obvious or certainly should have been at any rate.

It was so obvious, I'm not sure how you got to the point where you denied that the ancients had evidence, testimony, reason, and logic.

So there's no retraction forthcoming from me.

Typical Arty. Doubles down when he's shown to be wrong.

If you want to insist that directives issued to bronze age tribes

Genesis 4:22

who had no recourse to what we have in the present is paramount then that's your call.

1) It wasn't JUST to ancient Israel, else Paul would not have reinforced it in his letters to other nations.

2) Why do you assume modern forensics are a necessary part of determining guilt?

3) Quit appealing to novelty.

I don't expect you to consider anything outside of such a myopic view.

I expect you to consider evidence contrary to yours.

However, if you agree that God abhors the shedding of innocent blood

We do.

then you should reconsider

What makes you think I haven't already, and determined that God's ways are better than anything I could ever come up with?

given that your parameters in the present would guarantee such coming about.

The fact that you can't tell the difference between "guaranteeing something will happen in a system" and "acknowledging what will indeed happen regardless of how good the system is" shows your lack of discernment.

There's no such thing as a perfect system

No one said there was.

and mistakes are going to be made, them's the sad facts unfortunately

Duh. No one said otherwise.

but we can improve the system

Thinking you can improve on a system God designed is not only arrogant, but evil.

That makes you evil, Arty.

without going backwards as per your ideal that would only result in people wrongfully being put to death.

When the alternative is that people have to wait years or even decades to see justice, I would much prefer a system that has some innocents accidentally put to death, and some guilty accidentally set free, but where the majority of cases are rightly judged. How you think that's a step backwards from this is beyond me.

You're in no position to tell anyone they don't know the difference between right and wrong...

On the contrary, yes I am.

And you don't.

It's not sufficient evidence if it doesn't absolutely prove guilt and these are people's lives, not numbers.

Why do you disagree with God when He says that "two or three witnesses" is enough to establish a matter?

I've given enough explanation as to people where likelihood of guilt has been established.

No, you haven't, or else I wouldn't be asking.

Under your system many would now be six feet under

And many more would be released after a quick punishment, or released due to lack of evidence, and people would be able to move on with their lives.

Under the current system, and the one you advocate, more and more people will be locked up because "they might not be guilty."

You, Arthur, are incapable of judging rightly, which is why you can't accept God's standard of righteousness.

whereas there's plenty who have had convictions overturned and at least been compensated for time served in prison.

And yet, no one is held accountable for the mistakes made, not to any noticeable extent. Hmmm. Oh wait, they can't be, because they're all completely anonymous, or legally exempt from any real repercussions of their decisions.

Under my preferred system, judges would be held accountable for their bad judgements, oversights, malpractices, and general wickedness.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
They are if they choose to lie and/or lack understanding. Anyone who accuses me of wanting to see murderers and rapists go free is one or both of those things. Simple as that.

And you're the sole determiner of that?

What was that about one witness not being sufficient to establish a matter again?

Oh, right!

“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 the 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
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Your loss.



Because it allows me to thoroughly dismantle bad arguments such as yours.







It was so obvious, I'm not sure how you got to the point where you denied that the ancients had evidence, testimony, reason, and logic.



Typical Arty. Doubles down when he's shown to be wrong.



Genesis 4:22



1) It wasn't JUST to ancient Israel, else Paul would not have reinforced it in his letters to other nations.

2) Why do you assume modern forensics are a necessary part of determining guilt?

3) Quit appealing to novelty.



I expect you to consider evidence contrary to yours.



We do.



What makes you think I haven't already, and determined that God's ways are better than anything I could ever come up with?



The fact that you can't tell the difference between "guaranteeing something will happen in a system" and "acknowledging what will indeed happen regardless of how good the system is" shows your lack of discernment.



No one said there was.



Duh. No one said otherwise.



Thinking you can improve on a system God designed is not only arrogant, but evil.

That makes you evil, Arty.



When the alternative is that people have to wait years or even decades to see justice, I would much prefer a system that has some innocents accidentally put to death, and some guilty accidentally set free, but where the majority of cases are rightly judged. How you think that's a step backwards from this is beyond me.



On the contrary, yes I am.

And you don't.



Why do you disagree with God when He says that "two or three witnesses" is enough to establish a matter?



No, you haven't, or else I wouldn't be asking.



And many more would be released after a quick punishment, or released due to lack of evidence, and people would be able to move on with their lives.

Under the current system, and the one you advocate, more and more people will be locked up because "they might not be guilty."

You, Arthur, are incapable of judging rightly, which is why you can't accept God's standard of righteousness.



And yet, no one is held accountable for the mistakes made, not to any noticeable extent. Hmmm. Oh wait, they can't be, because they're all completely anonymous, or legally exempt from any real repercussions of their decisions.

Under my preferred system, judges would be held accountable for their bad judgements, oversights, malpractices, and general wickedness.
I'll live with such a 'loss' quite gladly thanks and if you could actually dismantle an argument then needless parsing would hardly be a requirement. In your initial OP your opponent was right on the money. Using bronze age methods or rigidly literal parameters as you insist upon would only result in more people being wrongfully convicted and put to death without even a chance to appeal. We don't live in such times and it is not evil to use every measure available to determine the guilt of someone before putting them to death when we have those available. If you truly believe that God abhors the shedding of innocent blood then some basic common sense should tell you that.

You, frankly, are in no position to tell me or anyone else that they're incapable of judging rightly so once again, get off that silly little high horse of yours.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
And you're the sole determiner of that?

What was that about one witness not being sufficient to establish a matter again?

Oh, right!

“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 the 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
Find any post of mine that posits that I would want to see murderers and rapists go free or that I have an agenda where I support that happening.

Good luck although you'd need way more than that.

If you and others can't defend your position without recourse to flat out lying or being mind numbingly obtuse then that's on you. It's pathetic but it's still on you.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
In your initial OP your opponent was right on the money.

Redirection. Stay focused.

Using bronze age methods

Genesis 4:22

or rigidly literal parameters

"Two or three witnesses" is not a rigid parameter, Arthur. How many times do we have to tell you that until we beat it through your thick skull?

as you insist upon would only result in more people being wrongfully convicted and put to death

No, it wouldn't, as explained previously.

without even a chance to appeal.

Judges alone are the only ones who have the right to appeal a case. Questioning a judge's decision inherently undermines his authority, and is wrong.

We don't live in such times

God's standard of "two or three witnesses" is absolute. Meaning it is ALWAYS applicable.

and it is not evil to use every measure available to determine the guilt of someone before putting them to death when we have those available.

Please quote one person in this thread who says otherwise.

If you truly believe that God abhors the shedding of innocent blood then some basic common sense should tell you that.

Supra.

You, frankly, are in no position to tell me or anyone else that they're incapable of judging rightly so once again...

Yes, quite frankly, I am.

You, Arthur Brain, do not know right from wrong.

Find any post of mine that posits that I would want to see murderers and rapists go free or that I have an agenda where I support that happening.

Every post you have made in this thread so far does so, as explained in posts 44, 47, and 49.

Good luck although you'd need way more than that.

No luck needed. I have the thread and everyone who has posted in it as my witnesses.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Murderers being set free is no worse than than the innocent being put to death.

How is that any different than what I said in my post?

For such a permanent punishment, guilt needs to be indisputable ,,,

Why?

Is not two or three witnesses, as God requires, enough to convict?

In other words, are you calling God a liar?

Of course that would mean upping the standards of both the judges

I'M ALL FOR THAT!

and jurors,

Not needed. One fallible human is enough, better even, than multiple.

Of course, if he wants to consult with his peers (aka other judges), there's nothing wrong with that. But jurors? Not needed.

required evidence,

Why does the standard of the quality of evidence have to be raised?

Why should the judge be limited to an arbitrary standard, and not simply just consider ALL evidence his investigation uncovers? And then make a decision based on that?

reporting requirements (as in holding publications responsible for sloppy or intentional reporting of biased or fake *evidence*).

Why wouldn't that just be a normal part of the investigation, overseen by the judge? If he determines that, based on the evidence he uncovers in the investigation, the accuser is a false accuser, then that determination means that the false accuser should be punished with whatever punishment he sought to bring upon the falsely accused.

And then the false accuser is punished, and everyone who survived goes back to their lives. End of story.

And if the judge determines that the accuser, even though his witness (ie, his testimony) is sloppy or biased, was correct, and not guilty of a crime himself, and finds corroborating evidence to support his claim, then the judgement is passed, and the wrongdoer is punished, and everyone who survived goes back to their lives. End of story.

And if the judge determines instead that even though the accuser's witness is sloppy or biased, but correct, the witness is also guilty of something, then, based on two or three witnesses, as with all of the above scenarios, he is also punished according to his crimes. And everyone who survived goes back to their lives. End of story.

Why make it more complicated than that?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
A complete database of DNA does not go far enough we need stop crime before it happens. We need the government to confiscate all: guns, knives, forks, ice picks, hammers, crowbars, tire irons, etc. Anything that can be used to commit a crime.
We need the government to put GPS trackers on all people, so that we can track their whereabouts at all times.
We need the government to track all financial transactions, so that no funny business can go on there.
Then we need to establish a department of pre-crime to detect crimes before they happen!

Don't forget to confiscate the money too! Because it can be used for crime too! Especially by the government... Oh wait...
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Redirection. Stay focused.



Genesis 4:22



"Two or three witnesses" is not a rigid parameter, Arthur. How many times do we have to tell you that until we beat it through your thick skull?



No, it wouldn't, as explained previously.



Judges alone are the only ones who have the right to appeal a case. Questioning a judge's decision inherently undermines his authority, and is wrong.



God's standard of "two or three witnesses" is absolute. Meaning it is ALWAYS applicable.



Please quote one person in this thread who says otherwise.



Supra.



Yes, quite frankly, I am.

You, Arthur Brain, do not know right from wrong.



Every post you have made in this thread so far does so, as explained in posts 44, 47, and 49.



No luck needed. I have the thread and everyone who has posted in it as my witnesses.
Already was and am. Your opponent in your own OP made a direct and salient point and one that holds merit.

Regurgitating the same verse isn't helping you or anyone any...

It would absolutely and it's utterly naive for you to state otherwise. You can't have your bread buttered on both sides on this JR. Either the most stringent methods to determine guilt are utilized or they aren't. If you reduce those to two or three 'witnesses' whatever form they happen to take today would result in evidence being disallowed to the judge under your system, or else what? He can't have half a dozen or more before making his determination?

I can quite easily quote one person who says or argues otherwise - you - here. You would have laws that don't determine absolute guilt.

No, quite frankly, you aren't. I know enough right from wrong to know that holding five year old children as accountable for their actions as adults is unsupportable on any level, from basic common sense to a basic understanding of science where it applies to neurology along with morality on the score and the Bible itself. The Bible does not support your posit on the score and you will never find a verse that will, not without twisting one to fit a twisted notion in itself. Nobody who advocates the execution of minors has any room to lecture on morality JR, not by a long shot.

No post of mine on this thread or anywhere else on this forum endorses or advocates the likes of what you feebly posit or support. Those who have some semblance of honesty and intellectual acumen know fine well that I'm not advocating that murderers and rapists be let free or want to see such in any way, shape or form. Truly pathetic already and if you maintain that then even more so.
 
Last edited:

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Either the most stringent methods to determine guilt are utilized or ... you reduce those to two or three witnesses.

False dichotomy.

Name names. Who is it that said the most stringent methods cannot be used?

...whatever form they happen to take today would result in evidence being disallowed to the judge under your system, or else what? He can't have half a dozen or more before making his determination?

Oh! I see your confusion. You think there's an upper limit to the number of witnesses.

Lol.

What a stupid thing to believe.

You would have laws that don't determine absolute guilt.

Laws don't determine guilt. Evidence does. Laws don't make make judgements. People do.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

...holding five year old children as accountable for their actions as adults is unsupportable on any level
Oh, you've got another bone to chew now?

No post of mine on this thread or anywhere else on this forum endorses or advocates the likes of what you feebly posit. Those who have some semblance of honesty know fine well that I'm not advocating that murderers and rapists be let free or want to see such. Truly pathetic.
You want murderers and rapists to go free.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Already was and am.

No, you're not.

Your opponent in your own OP made a direct and salient point and one that holds merit.

Then you should have addressed that when you first came here.

Regurgitating the same verse isn't helping you or anyone any...

Neither is you making the same straw man against ancient Israel.

It would absolutely and it's utterly naive for you to state otherwise.

You regurgitating the same claim as if that settles the matter isn't helping you or anyone.

You can't have your bread buttered on both sides on this

Hey, leave bread out of this!

Either the most stringent methods to determine guilt are utilized or they aren't.

Please quote anyone who says they shouldn't be.

If you reduce those to two or three 'witnesses' whatever form they happen to take today would result in evidence being disallowed to the judge under your system,

Why do you assume that more than two or three witnesses could not be brought against someone?

"Two or three" is the MINIMUM needed to establish guilt, not the minimum and maximum.

How do you not get that?

God said:

“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 the 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

He wasn't giving an upper limit, He was giving a LOWER limit. ONE is not enough. He never stated that more could not be used! TWO OR THREE is sufficient as a minimum, and He said "OR" because He expects the one judging to weigh the evidence. Do you know what "weighing the evidence" means? It means that one uses discernment, reasoning, logic, to consider the evidence that is presented, in order to make the best decision.

or else what? He can't have half a dozen or more before making his determination?

Please quote anyone who has stated otherwise.

I can quite easily quote one person who says or argues otherwise - you - here.

Then please do so. Because I have never said that we should not "use every measure available to determine the guilt of someone before putting them to death when we have those available."

You would have laws that don't determine absolute guilt.

As Stripe said, laws don't determine guilt. Evidence does. People make judgements, and by the testimony of two or three witnesses, a matter, such as guilt for a crime, is established. That's the guarantee God gives us.

No, quite frankly, you aren't.

Yes, I am. Having fun yet?

I know enough right from wrong

No, you don't.

to know that holding five year old children as accountable for their actions as adults is unsupportable on any level, from basic common sense to a basic understanding of science where it applies to neurology along with morality on the score and the Bible itself. The Bible does not support your posit on the score and you will never find a verse that will, not without twisting one to fit a twisted notion in itself. Nobody who advocates the execution of minors has any room to lecture on morality JR, not by a long shot.

Hmmm... Seems like you need a reminder:

5. Thou SHALL NOT hijack threads or be a "thread pest" (Hijacking a thread means intentionally changing the subject of a thread to discredit the thread's purpose. And being a "thread pest" means you pop into random threads just to make a mocking comment with no other purpose than to marginalize the discussion). If you are not interested in the topic of a thread, you might just want to stay out of it.

7. Thou SHALL NOT troll our forums. If you are here to make outlandish, crazy statements merely to get a rise out of the membership and cause trouble, please save yourself the time and leave.

Other things to avoid... These items may or may not cause TOL banishment.
Please do not stalk another TOL member. If you do not agree with a TOL member, do not follow that member around the TOL forum engaging them in every thread (even unrelated to the disagreement). If we determine you are a forum stalker we will ban you.

Do you WANT to be banned?

No post of mine on this thread or anywhere else on this forum endorses or advocates the likes of what you feebly posit or support.

You want criminals to be let go, because you feel it will vindicate you from being violating God's laws.

Those who have some semblance of honesty and intellectual acumen know fine well that I'm not advocating that murderers and rapists be let free or want to see such in any way, shape or form.

But you do. No matter how much you deny it, that's what you're advocating for.
 
Last edited:

Derf

Well-known member
Find any post of mine that posits that I would want to see murderers and rapists go free or that I have an agenda where I support that happening.
Any time you reject a proper solution for an improper one means that you support murderers and rapists going free. If the creator of the universe days the evil will not be inhibited without the measures for justice He has given, and you reject those, you are supporting freeing rapists and murderers SO THAT they will rape and murder some more, because that is what they do.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
No, you're not.



Then you should have addressed that when you first came here.



Neither is you making the same straw man against ancient Israel.



You regurgitating the same claim as if that settles the matter isn't helping you or anyone.



Hey, leave bread out of this!



Please quote anyone who says they shouldn't be.



Why do you assume that more than two or three witnesses could not be brought against someone?

"Two or three" is the MINIMUM needed to establish guilt, not the minimum and maximum.

How do you not get that?

God said:

“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 the 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

He wasn't giving an upper limit, He was giving a LOWER limit. ONE is not enough. He never stated that more could not be used! TWO OR THREE is sufficient as a minimum, and He said "OR" because He expects the one judging to weigh the evidence. Do you know what "weighing the evidence" means? It means that one uses discernment, reasoning, logic, to consider the evidence that is presented, in order to make the best decision.



Please quote anyone who has stated otherwise.



Then please do so. Because I have never said that we should not "use every measure available to determine the guilt of someone before putting them to death when we have those available."



As Stripe said, laws don't determine guilt. Evidence does. People make judgements, and by the testimony of two or three witnesses, a matter, such as guilt for a crime, is established. That's the guarantee God gives us.



Yes, I am. Having fun yet?



No, you don't.



Hmmm... Seems like you need a reminder:







Do you WANT to be banned?



You want criminals to be let go, because you feel it will vindicate you from being violating God's laws.



But you do. No matter how much you deny it, that's what you're advocating for.
No, you're not.



Then you should have addressed that when you first came here.



Neither is you making the same straw man against ancient Israel.



You regurgitating the same claim as if that settles the matter isn't helping you or anyone.



Hey, leave bread out of this!



Please quote anyone who says they shouldn't be.



Why do you assume that more than two or three witnesses could not be brought against someone?

"Two or three" is the MINIMUM needed to establish guilt, not the minimum and maximum.

How do you not get that?

God said:

“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 the 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

He wasn't giving an upper limit, He was giving a LOWER limit. ONE is not enough. He never stated that more could not be used! TWO OR THREE is sufficient as a minimum, and He said "OR" because He expects the one judging to weigh the evidence. Do you know what "weighing the evidence" means? It means that one uses discernment, reasoning, logic, to consider the evidence that is presented, in order to make the best decision.



Please quote anyone who has stated otherwise.



Then please do so. Because I have never said that we should not "use every measure available to determine the guilt of someone before putting them to death when we have those available."



As Stripe said, laws don't determine guilt. Evidence does. People make judgements, and by the testimony of two or three witnesses, a matter, such as guilt for a crime, is established. That's the guarantee God gives us.



Yes, I am. Having fun yet?



No, you don't.



Hmmm... Seems like you need a reminder:







Do you WANT to be banned?



You want criminals to be let go, because you feel it will vindicate you from being violating God's laws.



But you do. No matter how much you deny it, that's what you're advocating for.
So, now it's all okay to have way more than two or three witnesses to establish guilt and use the utmost stringency before sentencing someone to death? They are just the minimum required all of a sudden?

You can judge all you like but it's hardly right when you claim that I want criminals to be set free, that's asinine and unsupportable. Find a post of mine that expressly or in any way supports that with any degree of honesty on your part. You won;t find any such thing.

I'll start a new thread in regards to children and the DP if you care to address it there then, or not.
 
Top