Justice for Jessica........

[BVS]

I didn't see your link....

Do you see it now?

 

[JCOSTER]

Yes.

That's EXACTLY what he said when he stated that:



I don't meant to be rude, but....seriously??!!

I take it your not a believer.

 

[phillyfan26]

I take it your not a believer.

I think she was being sarcastic with the all-caps exactly.

 

[JCOSTER]

I didn't see your link....

But you don't have to like anyone but you must love your neighbor so that if they are in ANY kind of need you help them.

FYI: I don't only believe in the DP because of my religion.

 

[A_Wanderer]

There's no such thing as certainty in a system based on guilt beyond a reasonable doubt either.

True, but I am not burdened by a need to defend the death penalty and I agree. You declare that you feel there is no difference between life in prison and death, some people might feel very differently about that. I still think that the death penalty does hold some attraction if people want a guarantee of finality, even if there is no undoing it.

 

[JCOSTER]

I think she was being sarcastic with the all-caps exactly.

Sorry getting tired...

 

[phillyfan26]

True, but I am not burdened by a need to defend the death penalty and I agree. You declare that you feel there is no difference between life in prison and death, some people might feel very differently about that. I still think that the death penalty does hold some attraction if people want a guarantee of finality, even if there is no undoing it.

Well, there was much complaining about how if there's no DP they can still commit the crime, and I was referring to that as in no difference.

My problem with the finality argument remains that there's never certainty that ther person commited the crime. You don't want finality in that case: you want a chance to correct a mistake, better late than never.

 

[JCOSTER]

I definately would need 100% concrete proof for the dp to be initiated. In this case with John Couey its concrete.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Well, there was much complaining about how if there's no DP they can still commit the crime, and I was referring to that as in no difference.

My problem with the finality argument remains that there's never certainty that ther person commited the crime. You don't want finality in that case: you want a chance to correct a mistake, better late than never.

People can get out of a prison, they do not rise from the dead.

 

[phillyfan26]

I definately would need 100% concrete proof for the dp to be initiated. In this case with John Couey its concrete.

You see, there is no such thing. In our justice system, it's based on guilt beyong a reasonable doubt. Not certainty.

 

[BVS]

There's nothing in this world that is absolute.

Except death...

I mean as far as legal cases go...

 

[phillyfan26]

People can get out of a prison, they do not rise from the dead.

How often does someone break out of a high security prison? I'm willing to bet it's less than the number of times a man on death row or in prison for life has been set free after they were proven not guilty.

 

[melon]

Capital punishment is implicityvalidated in the NT. Jesus acknowledged the legitamacy of capital punishment before Pilate
(John 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.)

No, I'd say that that verse is a scathing indictment against the public that supports and takes joy in state-sanctioned murder. That is, the public servant merely carrying out his duty, with no particular support or zeal for it, will not suffer punishment. Instead, it is those who demand and call out loudly for the state to execute someone who has sinned ("For this reason the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin." - John 19:11).

Onto the next one...

as did the apostle Paul before the Roman Governor Festus.

If you have a book/chapter/verse for this one, it would be convenient for me to comment on.

Not only so, but one of the thieves crucified with Christ had the candor to confess, We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. (Luke 23:41).

These are not the words of Christ, but that of a fallible man. The larger lesson to be learned is that even the most despised of men are rewarded for their faith. Likewise, the fact that the state has chosen to execute an innocent man (Jesus) outlines the fallacy that only "the guilty" are executed. Did Jesus not say that it was better for many guilty men to go free than it was for one innocent man to die? (You'll have to pardon the fact that I don't remember the entirety of the verse or where it is specifically located.) If anything, the crucifixion of Jesus is a lingering reminder of the flaws of capital punishment--from the fallacies of the populist cries for "justice" and "revenge" that we see in the crowds before Pontius Pilate to the fact that the state is more than willing to cut corners and do anything to satisfy that popular bloodlust than to do what is right. It cannot be forgotten that Jesus was an innocent man who was executed for no reason.

Moreover, Romans 13 implies that the failure of the governing authorities to apply the "sword" the roman symbol for capital punishment exalts evil and eradicates equity.

That was not the purpose of Romans 13 at all. It did not declare the morality of the actions of the Roman Empire; it only recognized that they were powerless to stop it, and, as such, it was better to cooperate.

In fact, I'd say that this chapter is an early example of the separation of church and state, in that Paul outlines the difference between "civil law," which may or may not be moral, but is a fact of life, and "God's law," which is outlined later in Romans 13 (and happens to be my favorite Biblical verse):

"Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law." - Romans 13:8-10

The fact that Paul recognizes Roman authority and asks his followers to obey their laws is hardly an admission that all Roman laws--or, by extension, government laws--are automatically moral too. The sheer number of Christians to die at the hands of the Romans over the following couple of centuries after this was written would certainly not say that they were moral either. The idea is that Christians must hold themselves to a higher standard of morality than that of the state.

In short, God instituted capital punishment in the earliest stages of human civilization before the Mosaic Law, and capital punishment is never abrogated by Jesus or the Apostles. Thus capital punishment an enduring moral principle undergirding the sancity of life.

Mosaic Law, and all of its idiosyncrasies, are effectively voided in Acts 15 (I say "effectively," because Acts 15:20 upholds some archaic prohibitions regarding idolatry that are no longer a concern for us today). As such, Old Testament vengeance is no longer "moral" for those who consider themselves to be Christian, and, instead, we have been simultaneously released from the burden of Mosaic Law and given the greater burden of Jesus' commandment so eloquently elaborated in Romans 13:8-10. As we see in this thread, the moral imperative to not only love God and love one's neighbor, but to also "love our enemies" is a far more difficult virtue than our instincts for vengeance.

In short, I must respectfully state that I think any Christians who use the Bible to support the death penalty are not looking at the larger picture, but, instead, are picking out verses and taking them out of context for their own purposes.

 

[BVS]

JCOSTER, I see you reposted yourself as if that was suppose to answer anything. I tried to get you to respond to the context of the scripture, it seems to me you can't. You've decided to go the path of diamond and just ignore it. I'm sorry to see that...

 

[JCOSTER]

JCOSTER, I see you reposted yourself as if that was suppose to answer anything. I tried to get you to respond to the context of the scripture, it seems to me you can't. You've decided to go the path of diamond and just ignore it. I'm sorry to see that...

I did answer you. Thats why I requoted. I will look again.

 

[BVS]

I did answer you. Thats why I requoted. I will look again.

Please do look again, because you never once showed me anything remotely close to examining the context of that scripture you quoted...

 

[JCOSTER]

You see, there is no such thing. In our justice system, it's based on guilt beyong a reasonable doubt. Not certainty.

Once again the case against John Couey for murdering Jessica is concrete.

 

[JCOSTER]

Please do look again, because you never once showed me anything remotely close to examining the context of that scripture you quoted...

I'm tired and don't know what your trying to get at with this;

Genesis 9:6 NRSV) Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person's blood be shed; for in his own image God made humankind.

Those who construct their theology solely by finding a verse from scripture that answers a particular question need read no further in this post. From the above, there is no question that the death penalty is mandated to Christians and Jews for the sin of murder.

 

[indra]

Dwight Schrute from The Office (terrible reference, I know) sort of parodies this thinking, he once said, "Better 1000 innocent men in jail then one guilty man go free." Thought of that when you said that.

Unfortunately, you are correct, that mad line of thinking is coming into play.

Hilarious if it wasn't so true.

I just saw this and found it fairly chilling:

A new study has found juries in the United States get the verdict wrong in one out of six criminal cases and judges do not do much better.

According to an upcoming study out of Northwestern University, when they make those mistakes, both judges and juries are far more likely to send an innocent person to jail than to let a guilty person go free.

"Those are really shocking numbers," Jack Heinz said, a law professor at Northwestern, who reviewed the research of his colleague Bruce Spencer, a professor in the statistics department.

Professor Heinz says recent high-profile exonerations of scores of death row inmates have undermined faith in the infallibility of the justice system.

But these cases were considered relative rarities given how many checks and balances - like rules on the admissibility of evidence, the presumption of innocence and the appeals process - are built into the system.

"We assume as lawyers that the system has been created in such a way to minimise the chance we'll convict the innocent," Professor Heinz said.

"The standard of proof in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt - it's supposed to be a high one. But judging by Bruce's data the problem is substantial."

The study, which looked at 290 non-capital criminal cases in four major cities from 2000 to 2001, is the first to examine the accuracy of modern juries and judges in the United States.

It found that judges were mistaken in their verdicts in 12 per cent of the cases while juries were wrong 17 per cent of the time.

More troubling was that juries sent 25 per cent of innocent people to jail while the innocent had a 37 per cent chance of being wrongfully convicted by a judge.

The good news was that the guilty did not have a great chance of getting off. There was only a 10 per cent chance that a jury would let a guilty person free while the judge wrongfully acquitted a defendant in 13 per cent of the cases.

But that could have been because so many of the cases ended in a conviction - juries convicted 70 per cent of the time while the judges said they would have found the defendant guilty in 82 per cent of the cases.

But Professor Spencer cautioned that the study did not look at enough cases to prove that these numbers are true across the country.

But it has provided insight into how severe the problem could be, and has also shown that measuring the problem is possible.

The study will be published in the July edition of the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.

link to article posted

and for those legal wonks who wish to read through the actual report here is the link to that. Link to research paper

And granted these aren't capital cases, but given the swing to the right in this country, I would bet the pressure to convict is fairly high on juries and judges alike. No one wants to be called "soft on crime" after all.


Now Loki wants attention -- and when the Norse god of mischief wants attention, I know I best snap to it!

 

[phillyfan26]

Once again the case against John Couey for murdering Jessica is concrete.

1. How so? Confessions never are 100% accurate either, people have lied in confessions of guilt before, for a variety of reasons.

2. How often are cases "concrete"?

The bottom line is that no where in our system do we define guilt by certainty. It's beyond a reasonable doubt for a reason. Because we can never be sure.

 

[diamond]

I have, and that's hardly support for capital punishment at all. In fact, I'd say that if you had read further down the chapter, you'd see it as an anti-death penalty chapter.



"

is that how you interpret it?

JCoster-

Good night.



BVS-

I also find your Jonny Cash MF picture offensive, please take it down as a courtesy. And the Christ in the Temple analogy was stupid.
Please take it down, it makes you look like nothing more than a misfit.

dbs

 

[phillyfan26]

Oh Jesus.

 

[JCOSTER]

1. How so? Confessions never are 100% accurate either, people have lied in confessions of guilt before, for a variety of reasons.

2. How often are cases "concrete"?

The bottom line is that no where in our system do we define guilt by certainty. It's beyond a reasonable doubt for a reason. Because we can never be sure.

The jury convicted Couey of taking the girl in February 2005 from her bedroom to his nearby trailer, sparking a massive search. Her body was found about three weeks after she disappeared in a grave in Couey's yard, about 150 yards (137 meters) from her own home.

Couey, already a convicted sex offender when he committed the crime, was arrested in Georgia and confessed to the killing. That confession was thrown out as evidence because Couey did not have a lawyer present.

Despite the confession being tossed, Couey incriminated himself other times. Jail guards and investigators testified that he repeatedly admitted details of the slaying after his arrest, insisting that he had not meant to kill the girl but panicked during an intense, nationally publicized police search.

Prosecutors also had overwhelming physical evidence, including DNA from the girl's blood and Couey's semen on a mattress in his room as well as her fingerprints in a closet where investigators said she was hidden.

Couey has a criminal record that includes 24 burglary arrests, carrying a concealed weapon and indecent exposure. He was designated a sex offender for exposing himself to a 5-year-old girl in 1991.

Looks pretty concrete to me.

 

[melon]

is that how you interpret it?

If you read my entire post, you'll see that I outline my reasoning behind my interpretation in detail.

I have found that, most of the time, a single Bible verse is usually taken out of context when quoted, whereas reading the entire chapter gives better context. And, as is often the case for the Pauline epistles, you usually have to read the entire book to understand his context.

 

[BVS]

Those who construct their theology solely by finding a verse from scripture that answers a particular question need read no further in this post. From the above, there is no question that the death penalty is mandated to Christians and Jews for the sin of murder.

Well I'm convinced that context means nothing to you. I'm sorry about that, but we have nothing further to discuss if you can't look at context and only look at one verse at a time.

 

[JCOSTER]

Just to remind everyone here this is the little girl in the article mentioned above.

 

[phillyfan26]

The jury convicted Couey of taking the girl in February 2005 from her bedroom to his nearby trailer, sparking a massive search. Her body was found about three weeks after she disappeared in a grave in Couey's yard, about 150 yards (137 meters) from her own home.

Couey, already a convicted sex offender when he committed the crime, was arrested in Georgia and confessed to the killing. That confession was thrown out as evidence because Couey did not have a lawyer present.

Despite the confession being tossed, Couey incriminated himself other times. Jail guards and investigators testified that he repeatedly admitted details of the slaying after his arrest, insisting that he had not meant to kill the girl but panicked during an intense, nationally publicized police search.

Prosecutors also had overwhelming physical evidence, including DNA from the girl's blood and Couey's semen on a mattress in his room as well as her fingerprints in a closet where investigators said she was hidden.

Couey has a criminal record that includes 24 burglary arrests, carrying a concealed weapon and indecent exposure. He was designated a sex offender for exposing himself to a 5-year-old girl in 1991.

Looks pretty concrete to me.

Yes, it does "look" concrete. But again, people say things a lot that aren't true, as I said earlier, for a variety of reasons. Even admitting their own guilt when it's not true.

And in most cases, a person doesn't talk this much. How are we to judge the level of certainty of the guilt? You can't. It's impossible. Which is why the DP doesn't make sense.

 

[JCOSTER]

Well I'm convinced that context means nothing to you. I'm sorry about that, but we have nothing further to discuss if you can't look at context and only look at one verse at a time.

Well maybe you should interpret then b/c I really don't know what your getting at with it.

 

[BVS]

BVS-

I also find your Jonny Cash MF picture offensive, please take it down as a courtesy. And the Christ in the Temple analogy was stupid.
Please take it down, it makes you look like nothing more than a misfit.

dbs

I'll tell you what...

The day you stop your self righteous judgements, insults, and start practicing what you preach I will gladly do so...

Just show me that day.

 

[BVS]

Well maybe you should interpret then b/c I really don't know what your getting at with it.

Did you read the link? Did you read Melon's post? Please deconstruct that, I don't know how much more clearer I can make it...